The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm

Organizational
Enhancing the success of change
organizational change
Matching readiness strategies with sources of
resistance 167
Dennis R. Self and Mike Schraeder Received January 2008
Troy University Montgomery, Montgomery, Alabama, USA Revised October 2008
Accepted October 2008

Abstract
Purpose – This paper seeks to provide guidance on specific ways by which organizations can
overcome resistance by matching readiness strategies with forms of resistance.
Design/methodological approach – The paper summarizes literature on resistance to change and
readiness to change, leading to the development of specific recommendations for reducing resistance
through specific readiness strategies.
Findings – Resistance, though common, may be more effectively managed if specific readiness
strategies are matched with requisite sources of resistance.
Practical implications – The paper provides guidance on addressing primary sources of resistance
by matching them with specific elements proposed by Armenakis et al. that lead to readiness for
change.
Originality/value – The synthesis of literature related to creating readiness for change and
resistance to change leads to a resistance to change typology, including three domains. While these
domains have been addressed in change literature, the paper further expands on these domains by
offering potential sources of resistances within each domain. This should lead to future research that
explores these domains and sources within each domain in greater depth.
Keywords Organizational change, Change management, Strategic change
Paper type Conceptual paper

It is readily acknowledged that organizations experience change on an ongoing basis.

Indeed, within the last few decades, organizations have been exposed to global
environment changes (Ghoshal, 1987), workforce changes (Lerman and Schmidt, 2002),
technological changes (e.g. Connor, 1992; Wanberg and Banas, 2000), an increasingly
competitive environment (David, 2006) and an economic environment that is
increasingly volatile (Hoskisson et al., 2000). For the sake of survival, organizations
have attempted to anticipate and adapt to these changes through strategies including
organizational redesign (Greenwood and Hinings, 1988), which often embodies
changing the very culture of the organization (Gilmore et al., 1997). Organizations
failing to adapt or respond to these changes in a timely fashion run the risk of losing
market share to competitors, losing key employees, jeopardizing shareholder support,
and possibly even demise (Collins, 2001; Vollman, 1996). Leadership & Organization
The first challenge organizations face is recognizing the need for change. The Development Journal
Vol. 30 No. 2, 2009
second, and possibly more significant, challenge organizations face is effectively pp. 167-182
deploying strategies to implement change. Contemporary literature outlines a q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7739
multitude of various strategies for implementing change in an organization DOI 10.1108/01437730910935765
LODJ (cf. Armenakis et al., 1999; Beer et al., 1990a; Caruth et al., 1995; Galpin, 1996; Huy,
30,2 2001; Kotter, 1995; Leppitt, 2006; Nadler, 1998). However, most major changes fall short
of intended goals (Gilmore et al., 1997). In fact, several sources suggest that at least half
of all change efforts fail to meet the anticipated objectives (e.g. Choi and Behling, 1997;
Maurer, 1996; Pascale et al., 1997).
While the causes of these piteous results are, arguably, multi-faceted, one of the
168 plausible antecedents to the failure of change could be that organizational managers
have failed to understand fully what is necessary in guiding their organizations
through a change initiative. Proper planning of the implementation can help mitigate
the likelihood of failure of change and also help prevent other undesirable
consequences such as reduced employee morale, diminished commitment and
increased cynicism (Gilmore et al., 1997; Kim and Mauborgne, 1993; Nutt, 1986;
Schweiger and DeNisi, 1991). An essential component of properly planning the
implementation of a change initiative is the recognition of possible employee resistance
toward change (Del Val, 2003; Ford et al., 2001). It is important to consider this in the
planning efforts since resistance to change is considered by some to be the most
significant threat to the successful implementation of strategic initiatives (Geisler,
2001; Maurer, 1996).
Fortunately, effective planning and management of the change process is not
impossible. Through the use of previously developed change strategies, it is possible
for organizational leaders to increase the likelihood of a successful change
implementation. There are a number of models from which change leaders may
draw (c.f. Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 1996; Nadler, 1998). One model applying specific
strategies to a change initiative is the institutionalization of change model developed
by Armenakis et al. (1999). The model focuses on the creation of readiness for change,
guiding the organizational members to adopt the change, ultimately incorporating the
change into the very culture and fabric of the organization.
The purpose of this article is to summarize specific resistance beliefs, and, through
the application of the five elements of the readiness for change message developed by
Armenakis et al. (1993, 1999) provide a summary of possible strategies for
transforming these resistance beliefs to readiness beliefs that will ultimately support
the change, thus increasing the likelihood of success.

Resistance to change
Maurer (1996) defines resistance as, “a force that slows or stops movement” (p. 23),
with Bridges (1986) suggesting that it is an incomplete transition in responding to
change. Similarly, Kotter (1995) suggests that resistance is an obstacle in an
organization’s structure that prevents change. Other researchers define resistance to
change by its displayed behaviors. For example, Hultman (1995) argued that resistance
consists of two dimensions: active and passive. Active resistance includes behaviors
such as being critical, selective use of facts, sabotaging, and starting rumors. Passive
resistance is displayed by behaviors such as public support, but failure to implement
the change, procrastinating, and withholding information or support.
Palmer et al. (2006) framed their discussion of resistance to change in terms of why
people resist change, drawing from a number of sources (e.g. Dym, 1999; Maurer, 1996;
Robinson and Rousseau, 1994). While there are numerous studies addressing posited
reasons why people resist change, there is not a common typology that
comprehensively addresses all potential sources of resistance. However, Holt et al. Organizational
(2007) offer insight into this topic through their observation that change readiness change
scales typically assess along four dimensions, including the content of the change, the
context of the change, the change process and factors related to individuals involved in
the changes. Considering the close relationship between readiness and resistance, these
four common dimensions serve as a robust foundation for the development of a
resistance typology. For the purpose of this article, the readiness dimension of change 169
context will be embodied in the resistance domain of organizational factors, the
readiness dimension of individual attributes will be embodied within the resistance
domain of personal factors, and the readiness dimensions of content and process will
be included into a single resistance domain, labeled change specific factors. These
domains, as well as potential sources within each domain are summarized in Table I.
These domains of resistance will be used as framework for identifying possible
readiness strategies for reducing resistance in subsequent sections of this article.
The first domain in Table I, personal factors as a potential source of resistance to
change, encompasses numerous facets to consider. These facets include, but are not
limited to personal attributes such as disposition, current issues in an individual’s life, and
even concerns related to their personal external environment. In regard to personal
attributes, for example, individuals may simply possess a low tolerance for change
(Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979). In other cases, individuals may resist change simply
because the change represents uncertainty, and they fear the unknown (Karim and
Kathawala, 2005; Visagie and Botha, 1998). Coupled with uncertainty, individuals might
even resist change because they are concerned about their own personal failure (Mink,
1992).
From a dispositional perspective, it is instructive to consider the “Big 5” personality
type, openness to experience, with individuals high in this trait depicted as being more
open minded and willing to attempt new things (Nikolaou et al., 2007). Conversely,
individuals with lower levels of the trait, openness to experience, are likely to be less
interested in trying new things. Intuitively, then, this can be applied to the context of
change since organizational change often requires individuals to engage in new
routines and activities. Thus, individuals with lower levels of openness to experience

Domain Potential sources within the domain

Personal factors Personal concerns and attributes that evoke dislike

Organizational factors
Change-specific factors (content and process)
or aversion to change in general
Current issues in personal life that make change
unappealing
Concerns over issues in the external environment
The history of change within the organization
Credibility of the organization
Credibility of the change agent
The change is not perceived as right or needed for
the organization Table I.
The process of planning the change was flawed Domains of resistance to
Concerns about the interpersonal impact of the change and associated
change sources
LODJ might be less supportive of organizational changes and more prone to resist change to
30,2 the extent that it requires them to engage in new activities.
On a final note related to personal factors as sources of resistance to change, it is
readily acknowledged that individuals have a multitude of needs. Maslow (1987)
developed a widely accepted hierarchy of needs that are common to most individuals.
It is edifying to consider this hierarchy, elucidating five levels of individual needs, in
170 the context of resistance to change. The second level in hierarchy, safety needs, reflect
an individual’s “. . . need to operate in an environment that is physically and
psychologically safe and secure, one free from threats of harm” (Greenberg and Baron,
2008, p. 251). Thus, it could be argued that anything in an individual’s environment
which poses a threat to their security could be potential source of resistance. In line
with this assertion, striving for security is among the reasons for resistance to change
listed by Visagie and Botha (1998). This resistance could be prompted by personal
concerns related to the fear of losing a job or a reduction in benefits. It could also extend
to the individuals non-work life (Palmer et al., 2006), wherein other factors that threaten
the perception of security, ranging from personal illness, loss of a close relative or loved
one, or even the threat of a natural disaster could conceivably have an indirect effect on
an individuals resistance to change, prompted by the fact that they are concerned
about other issues in their lives. These concerns in their personal lives could lead to a
sense of instability that is, then, extended to the work environment, where their sense
of instability could make them less willing to support organizational changes because
they are preoccupied with issues in their personal lives.
In addition to personal factors, there are also a host of organizational factors that
could evoke resistance to change. Organizational factors leading to resistance could
include the perceived credibility of the organization, the perceived credibility of those
leading the change, and also the organization’s history or track record related to
change. Karim and Kathawala (2005), for example, list distrust of management as a
significant cause of resistance. In this same study, politics is also offered as one of the
primary antecedents of resistance. Similarly, Mink (1992) lists lack of trust in the one
initiating the change as a possible source of resistance.
Over time, organizations undertake a number of changes. In turn, individuals
develop a sense of an organization’s history as it relates to change (Palmer et al., 2006).
If organizations have successfully implemented changes in the past, individuals might
have more confidence in the probability of success for current changes, and, thus, be
less likely to demonstrate resistance. On the other hand, some organizations have a
track record of botched change attempts that could lead to a sense of cynicism amongst
employees (Armenakis and Harris, 2002). This is important to note since researchers
have found that resistance is related to cynicism (Stanley et al., 2005). Aside from the
organization’s history of change, individuals may also resist change because they
perceive that there are too many changes being undertaken simultaneously (Mink,
1992; Palmer et al., 2006).
The third domain of resistance shown in Table I embodies factors specific to the
change itself. These factors might include the processes undertaken to implement
the change (Palmer et al., 2006), as well as the specific content encompassed within the
change. With regard to process related resistance, individuals perceiving that
processes were flawed may have a tendency to exhibit higher levels of resistance than
those who perceived the process to be logical and equitable. Moreover, those who are
directly impacted by the change may have a tendency to resist the change if they are Organizational
not included in the process of planning the change (Mink, 1992). change
Resistance may also result from factors related specifically to the content of the
change. For example, individuals may lack clarity or understanding related to the
change, thus resulting in resistance (Alas, 2007). Furthermore, individuals may not
view the change, itself, as being appropriate for the organization, thus prompting them
to resist the change. This particular source of resistance is directly related to the 171
specific nature or content of the change. Concerns about the content of the change may
lead to additional resistance if individuals perceive that the change will have an
undesirable impact on them (Carter, 2008). The perceived negative impact, in turn,
could include concerns about how the change may impact their job, how the change
may impact their friendships (Karim and Kathawala, 2005) and also how the change
may impact interactions with valued coworkers (Klaus, 1997).
It is important to note, as Palmer et al. (2006) contend, that resistance to change
comes not just from employees, but management as well. Jacobsen (2008), for example,
notes that resistance may result from middle managers failing to get involved in the
change process. Typical conversations about resistance to change inevitably lead to an
indictment of lower level employees (Piderit, 2000) when, in fact, resistance can occur at
any level within the organization since leaders and managers are prone to resist change
for the same reasons as the other levels employees (e.g. Agocs, 1999; Audia et al., 2000).
The concept of resistance to change is not without its critics. Wheatley (in Maurer,
1996) said:
I absolutely believe that the whole focus on resistance to change is just a by-product of very
bad change processes. The resistance we are experiencing in organizations says nothing
about human nature or our innate ability to deal with change in a changing world (p. 51).
Wheatley’s comment reinforces a contention, noted earlier, that change initiatives often
tend to fail because of “bad change processes.” As Piderit (2000) noted:
Successful organizational adaptation is increasingly reliant on generating employee support
and enthusiasm for proposed change, rather than merely overcoming resistance (p. 783).
Thus, the first step in the process of implementing a change initiative is creating
readiness for the change.

Readiness for change

The genesis of readiness lies in Lewin’s (1947) concept of unfreezing or getting
organizational members to let go, both physically and psychologically, of the current
ways of doing things within the organization. Management must provide evidence that
the current ways are no longer acceptable or appropriate if the organization is to
remain successful or regain success.
One approach to creating readiness (as well as managing the change
implementation process) was proposed by Kotter and Schlesinger (1979). They
offered six methods including, among others, education and communication,
participation and involvement, facilitation and support, and even explicit and
implicit coercion. However, Armenakis et al. (1993, 1999) defined readiness as the
cognitive evaluation made by the member that can lead to the member’s support for or
resistance to the change initiative. Thus, if creating readiness is the first step of the
LODJ implementation process and is properly done, employees should be more willing to
30,2 support and ultimately adopt the change. If this first step is neglected, however, some
employees may actively or passively resist the change initiative.
The comprehensive and pragmatic nature of Armenakis et al.’s (1999)
characterization of change readiness, coupled with prolific citations of this model in
numerous other contemporary studies, make Armenakis et al.’s (1999) model
172 particularly appealing in the context of this article. Armenakis et al. (1999) believed
that readiness for change is created in the message delivered by management to the
employees. The introduction of a new change initiative can create uncertainty and
concern for the future in the minds of organizational members. The change message is
used to address the uncertainty and concern by answering five questions:
(1) Is the change necessary?
(2) Is the change being introduced the right change to make?
(3) Are key organizational members supportive of the change?
(4) Do I or we (the organizational members) have the ability to successfully
implement the change?
(5) What is in it for me if we change?

These questions are answered through five components of the change message.
The first component of the change message, labeled discrepancy by Armenakis et al.
(1993, 1999) answers the first question, “Is the change necessary?” Discrepancy is
defined as the difference between the current state and an ideal or desired state. Until
organizational members are aware that the current state is not desired and that a
different state is preferred, there will be no incentive to consider a change. Beer et al.
(1990a) argued that change will not occur until organizational members recognize that
there is a “clear and present danger; a tangible and immediate problem that must be
confronted if the organization is to remain economically viable” (p. 55). Coch and
French’s (1948) comparison of their plant’s product (pajamas) with those made by a
competitor is an example of creating this awareness. In another example, Galpin (1996)
described a petro-chemical company that used industry benchmarks to demonstrate to
its employees the necessity of a specific change.
The second component of the change message is appropriateness. This component
answers the question, “Is this the right change?” When a change initiative is introduced
into an organization, it must be recognized that this is not done in a vacuum. In
recognizing the need to change, employees will ask, “change to what?” Not only must
management demonstrate there is a need to change, they must also provide
information that the proposed change initiative is the correct one. Beckhard and Harris
(1987) observed that the key diagnostic question to answer in introducing a change
initiative is what the initiative is intended to correct or improve. Yet, management
must recognize even if organizational members agree that a change is necessary, they
may still disagree with the proposed change initiative (Kissler, 1991). Kissler described
an organization in which management pushed to create a more participative
environment, getting organizational members more involved to improve
organizational effectiveness. While mid-level supervisors agreed with the need to
improve the organization’s effectiveness, they were not in favor of shifting to a more
participative workplace. However, not only does there have to be agreement that the
proposed change initiative is appropriate, but also there must be agreement that the Organizational
initiative is congruent with the culture, structure, formal systems, etc. of the change
organization (Buller et al., 1985). Thus, the change initiative’s fit with the organization
is as important as whether or not the initiative is the right one.
The third component of the change message is principal support. This component
answers the question, “Who supports this change?” For Armenakis et al. (1999)
principal support was necessary to, “provide information and convince organizational 173
members that the formal and informal leaders are committed to successful
implementation . . . of the change” (p. 103). When a change initiative is introduced,
organizational members will look to see if management is serious about the proposed
change, especially if there was no follow-through for past change initiatives or if the
past changes failed. Attempting to make sense of the change initiative and
management’s motives, organizational members will seek information from sources
other than those managers introducing the change. The sources typically considered
by employees are those viewed as reliable. Larkin and Larkin (1994) observed that
“Programs don’t change workers – supervisors do” (p. 85). Larkin and Larkin believed
that the frontline supervisor is the most important individual in enlisting support from
organizational members for a change initiative. When leadership announces a change,
an employee often turns to his or her immediate supervisor for an explanation of the
meaning of the change. If the immediate supervisor is also unaware of the justification
for the change, readiness could be impacted for both the member and the supervisor.
Likewise, an employee’s peers are also important in providing meaning to a proposed
change initiative. Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1999) found that while organizational
members in a hospital did not trust top management, they trusted the perceptions of
their peers.
Although evidence has been presented for the importance of immediate supervisors
and peers in creating readiness for change, it should not be assumed that this level of
support is the only level that matters. Change is typically introduced by and driven by
top management. Thus, their reactions to a proposed change initiative carries great
weight in the minds of organizational members. Covin and Kilmann (1990), for
example, reported that the visibility of support for and commitment to a change
created a positive perception of the change, whereas, a visible lack of support or
inconsistent behaviors on the part of management led to a negative perception of the
change. A final example of the importance of principal support was described by
Vollman (1996). Vollman was a consultant for a firm with a management information
system that was in disarray. Vollman and his associates recommended a new system
to bring order to the organization. Nevertheless, a key executive, who opposed the
change, held so much power within the organization that Vollman and his associates
also recommended that the organization wait until the executive completed his
scheduled retirement before implementing the needed change.
The fourth message component proposed by Armenakis et al. (1999) is that of
efficacy. Efficacy addresses the question of “Can I/we successfully make this change?”
Bandura and Locke (2003) define efficacy as, “. . . the power to produce desired effects;
otherwise one has little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties” (p. 87).
Galpin (1996) contends that management has the responsibility to provide
organizational members with the training and education needed to implement
successfully a change initiative. This is important because employees may lack the
LODJ confidence that the change can be successfully implemented. Past failures by
30,2 management to provide such education or training to prepare the organization for
change can lead to employees lacking confidence in themselves to be successful in
implementing a change. This can also lead to employees having a lack of confidence in
management’s ability to lead them in implementing the change. Conversely,
management may even doubt the abilities of the organization’s employees to be
174 successful, or their own abilities. This perspective fits research by Ketterer and Chayes
(1995), McCall (1993), and Vollman (1996). Ketterer and Chayes (1995) suggested that
organizations must develop the leadership talent necessary to enable the organization
to meet the challenges of a changing environment. Thus, development and training of
potential leaders is imperative. McCall (1993) observed that failing to select, train, and
promote individuals equipped to deal with a changing environment could lead to a
management team’s being ill-equipped to recognize the need for change, and then
successfully guide the organization through the process of change. Finally, Vollman
contended that the high-failure rates observed in change initiatives could be a result of
management’s failure to understand the knowledge, skill, and ability requirements
necessary for an organization to be successful in implementing a change initiative.
The final component of the change message for creating readiness is valence. When
faced with a change in their present situation, employees frequently ask, silently or
vocally, “What’s in it for me/us?” Armenakis et al. (1993, 1999) observed if the
individual, impacted by a deviation from present policies or procedures, perceived
there was no benefit to changing, or if the pain of changing outweighed the gain from
changing, then the employee would resist the change. Conversely, if it can be
demonstrated that the member would be better off from the change, at least in the long
run, the member would be more likely to embrace the change. This evaluative
judgment of the change is a key component of valence. Goodman et al. (1980) focused
on the attractiveness of the change outcomes. Thus, it is not just whether or not there is
a benefit to changing, but how attractive the benefit is to the member. Even if
management has demonstrated there is a need for a particular change initiative and the
organization will be better off for it, and even if the employee recognizes this, he or she
will still focus on how the change individually impacts him or her.
Judson (1996) applied a relational framework to how organizational members view
change. Faced with a change initiative, organizational members seek to understand
how the initiative will impact their jobs, their relationships with their coworkers, to the
organization itself. Viewed through an efficacy lens, members might worry that they
are not capable of making the necessary-job-related changes to continue to perform in
the organization. Also, supervisors may resist any change perceived to undermine their
authority. Klein (1984), for example, found that supervisors tended to resist changes
associated with employee-involvement programs if the programs were perceived by
the supervisors as leading to a loss of supervisor authority.
The next section provides specific suggestions or strategies for applying these five
components to the four sources of resistance identified earlier. However, it is important
to iterate that each of the five components of the change readiness message do not
stand-alone. Each component is interrelated with the others, influencing or shaping the
others. The components are additive in nature, as well, shaping both the nature of the
readiness for change message and organizational members’ readiness for change.
The change readiness matrix Organizational
Certain readiness components are better suited for preventing or minimizing the
likelihood of resistance to change. By arranging the five readiness components
change
(Armenakis et al., 1999) with the three major sources of resistance, identified earlier in
Table I, in a matrix form, potential relationships between the components and
perceptions can be seen (Table II).
175
Personal factors
There is a consensus among many managers and consultants that people typically
dislike change. However, as Dent and Powley (2003) observed, not all change is
perceived as bad by organizational members. While organizational members may
agree that a change is necessary, they may believe that the change initiative proposed
by management will not work (Kissler, 1991). A perceived dislike of change can lie
within a context of efficacy and valence. Change that leaves an organizational member
feeling vulnerable in terms of his or her ability to successfully take part in the change
can trigger resistance towards the change. As Galpin (1996) noted, a lack of confidence
in one’s ability to adapt to a particular change initiative can lead to resistance toward
it. By communicating, management can create the belief among employees that the
appropriate training and education will be provided (principal support and efficacy),
and that those receiving the training and education will benefit in terms of the ability to
perform and take advantage of opportunities that may arise from implementation of
the change initiative (valence).
Most people dislike ambiguity or a sense of not being in control. The uncertainty
can arise from a lack of information as to whether the chosen course of action is the
right action or even needed, how others feel about the change, whether one has the
knowledge, skills, or ability to be a successful part of the change, and uncertainty as to
how one will be impacted by the proposed change initiative. Thus, the role of
management is to clarify that the proposed change is both necessary (Beer et al., 1990b)
(discrepancy) and the best one to achieve the goals of the organization
(appropriateness). Additionally, being visible to answer questions about the
proposed change initiative not only involves application of the discrepancy and
appropriateness components, it also demonstrates an application of the
principal-support component (Covin and Kilmann, 1990).
Personal fear, prompted by uncertainty about whether or not an individual can
successfully adapt to a change initiative may be resolved, at least partially, through the
efforts of management to provide the necessary training and education for
organizational members to enable them to adapt to the change initiative (Galpin,
1996). Finally, uncertainty can emerge from concern about an individual’s future with
the organization, the individual’s future relationship with coworkers, or whether or not
there are desired benefits or pain associated with the change initiative (Judson, 1996;
Kissler, 1991). As Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) demonstrated in their longitudinal

Discrepancy Appropriateness Principal support Efficacy Valence

Table II.
Personal factors £ £ £ £ £ The readiness for
Organizational factors £ £ £ change-resistance to
Change-specific factors £ £ £ £ change matrix
LODJ study, face-to-face presentations to plant employees by management concerning
30,2 benefits and issues related to a merger were powerful strategies in building support for
the merger (also demonstrating principal support).
As previously mentioned, security is a major concern for individuals. A perception
that a change initiative will have a negative effect on one’s interest is clearly a valence
issue. While the negative effects can include a fear of the loss of authority, status,
176 rewards, opportunity to do what one does best, relationships with coworkers, control or
autonomy, a major fear today is the fear of possible economic loss (David, 2006). With
news reports on the outsourcing of jobs, increasing costs of health care, and the
continual use of downsizing as a management tool to control costs, the fear of economic
loss is likely the most salient issue related to valence. As articulated earlier, actions
taken by management to mitigate the impact of a change initiative on organizational
members can have beneficial effects to the organization. As researchers such as Kissler
(1991) and Klein (1984) observed, those changes negatively impacting organizational
members, in whatever way, will not be positively received (Valence). Indeed, the nature
of some change initiatives will mean that some negative outcomes cannot be avoided.
In these situations management is wise not to ignore or smooth over the potentially
negative impact. By addressing these issues in a straightforward manner and striving
to make sure that the change initiative is implemented fairly, management may be able
to ameliorate, to some extent, the reactions of those negatively affected (Maurer, 1996;
Moorman, 1991; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997).

Organizational factors
As previously discussed, individuals who do not perceive organizations as credible
may be prone to resist changes in the organization. Consequently, efforts undertaken to
enhance the organization’s credibility may have ancillary benefits of reducing
resistance to change. Clearly communicating the need for the change to employees by
offering external information about the rationale for the change could be a powerful
first step in regaining credibility (Carter, 2008) (discrepancy and appropriateness). This
communication should also be fostered in an environment characterized by open and
supportive, where individuals are able to share their concerns, frustrations, and needs
without fear of retribution (Schultz, 2007) (principal support), thus enhancing the
credibility of the organization, as well as those leading the change.
Allowing individuals to participate in the change process is recognized as one of the
most popular strategies undertaken to combat resistance (Chirico and Salvato, 2008),
and with good reason given empirical evidence that participation in making decisions
reduces resistance (Vithessonthi, 2007). Utilizing the strategy of employee involvement
not only enhances two-way communication within the organization, but sends an
implicit message to employees that they are valued and that the organization trusts
them enough to be included in the decision-making process.
To regain confidence as a credible leader, and thus reduce resistance, leaders should
roll up their sleeves and get directly involved in the essence of the change, attending
training with employees, listening with an open mind to their comments, and serving
as an advocate for the employees during times of dispute (principal support).
Change-specific factors Organizational
The way we do things around here becomes the way we do things around here because change
that way has been reinforced through past success. Over time, policies, procedures,
routines, the formal systems of the organization become entrenched because they have
been successful. Similarly, over time, congruence among culture, structure, and formal
systems has emerged and a set of values and norms are now in place. There is a
perceived fit among all (Buller et al., 1985). Thus, a change initiative represents an 177
assault on the very identity of the organization, and such a change might be the most
difficult change to attempt. As a result, management must apply all of the components
of the change-readiness message if it expects to implement a change initiative in such a
situation.
Cameron and Quinn (1999) provided a list of suggestions or strategies for
management to follow in attempting to change a culture. The change readiness
components fit within the strategies provided by Cameron and Quinn. For example,
Cameron and Quinn proposed that management must explain why the change is
necessary and that management creates readiness, which may be defined as showing
the advantages of changing and the disadvantages of not changing (discrepancy).
Explaining why and creating readiness (as they define it) may also apply to
demonstrating the appropriateness of the change, but they also recommend that
management identify small wins. Showing measured progress as the change evolves
will build beliefs that the change is appropriate. Identifying small wins also is a key
step in building confidence within the organizational members (efficacy). Small wins
can also be a step toward satisfying valence concerns as people begin to see some
benefit in the change by the wins they experience. In support of this contention, Carter
(2008) also suggests that managers promote successful change by facilitating visible,
public celebrations of progress being made (principal support).
Finally, Cameron and Quinn called on management to demonstrate social support.
By that, they mean that management should build a coalition of supporters for the
change. They specifically recommend identifying opinion leaders. This fits with the
Armenakis et al. (1999) readiness component of principal support. By identifying and
encouraging those supporters at all levels for the change, it becomes easier for other
organizational members to join in making the change implementation successful.
Establishing opinion leaders can also be fostered through the involvement and
participation of employees in the decision making processes, encouraging them to take
direct ownership in the success of the change.

Conclusion
Piderit (2000) commented that, “Rarely do individuals form resistant attitudes, or
express such attitudes in acts of dissent or protest, without considering the potential
negative consequences for themselves” (p. 784). Piderit went on to conclude, “. . . what
some may perceive as disrespectful or unfounded opposition might also be motivated
by individuals’ ethical principles, or by their desire to protect the organization’s best
interest” (p. 785). Management should never assume that the reason resistance to a
particular change initiative is occurring is because people don’t like change. To object
in writing to a change initiative or to stand in front of management and verbalize it is
an act of courage. Management should, therefore, carefully consider any actions that
are perceived to be resistant towards the proposed change initiative, because the
LODJ actions may well be grounded in the reality that the change initiative either is the
30,2 wrong initiative altogether, or is flawed in some way. However, just because there is no
overt resistance to the change initiative management never should assume that it has
crafted the perfect change initiative because, again, it is an act of courage to verbalize
opposition to a change initiative that might be carrying the endorsement of the highest
levels of management.
178 The five elements of the change message for creating readiness for change proposed
by Armenakis et al. (1999) provide management with a means by which readiness for a
change initiative is created, leading to the support of the proposed change, rather than
the rise of resistance to the change initiative. By a careful consideration of whether or
not the change is necessary to move the organization from a current state to a desired
state, whether or not the proposed change initiative is the best means to reach the
desired state, whether or not a guiding coalition of support for the change is in place,
whether or not both management and the organizational members have the knowledge,
skills, and ability to successfully implement the change initiative, and, finally, whether
or not there is a perception that some positive benefit will be derived from the
implementation of the change initiative, whether in the short term or long term,
management will have crafted a change initiative that can readily be embraced by the
organizational members, not resisted. By managing the creation of readiness effort
across all stages of the change initiative implementation, and not just at the beginning,
the likelihood of success will be significant.

Limitations and directions for future research

While the insights offered in this article add to our understanding of the relationships
between readiness strategies and resistance, there are noteworthy limitations that
merit consideration. For example, the central thesis of this article is conceptual.
Consequently, inferences drawn between the posited impact of certain readiness
strategies on resistance must be made with guarded confidence. Future studies could
enhance our understanding of the true relationships between these readiness strategies
and resistance through cross-sectional, empirically based analyses. It should also be
noted that the recommendations and insights offered in this article are based on
selected change models. Future research in the area of readiness and resistance might
be enhanced by making comprehensive comparisons between some of the most widely
respected models. On a final note, this article introduced a relatively pragmatic
typology of resistance. Future studies could contribute to our understanding of
resistance through a more in-depth exploration of the specific nuances and
sub-components associate with each of the three domains.

References
Agocs, C. (1999), “Institutional resistance to organizational change: denial, inaction and
repression”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, pp. 917-31.
Alas, R. (2007), “Reactions to organizational change from the institutional perspective: the case of
Estonia”, Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 19-31.
Armenakis, A.A. and Harris, S.G. (2002), “Crafting a change message to create transformational
readiness”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 169-83.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Feild, H.S. (1999), “Making change permanent: a model for
institutionalizing change interventions”, in Passmore, W. and Woodman, R. (Eds),
 Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 12, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, Organizational
pp. 289-319.
change
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G. and Mossholder, K.W. (1993), “Creating readiness for
organizational change”, Human Relations, Vol. 46, pp. 681-97.
Audia, P.G., Locke, E.A. and Smith, K.S. (2000), “The paradox of success: an archival and a
laboratory study of strategic persistence following radical environmental change”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 837-53. 179
Bandura, A. and Locke, E.A. (2003), “Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88, pp. 87-99.
Beckhard, R. and Harris, R.T. (1987), “Assessing the present: benchmarks for change”,
Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company, Reading, MA, pp. 57-70.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, B. (1990a), The Critical Path to Corporate Renewal, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, B. (1990b), “Why change programs don’t produce change”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 158-66.
Bridges, W. (1986), “Managing organizational transitions”, Organizational Dynamics, Summer,
pp. 24-33.
Buller, P.F., Saxberg, B.O. and Smith, H.L. (1985), “Institutionalization of planned organizational
change: a model and review of the literature”, in Goodstein, L.D. and Pfeiffer, J.W. (Eds),
The 1985 Annual: Developing Human Resources, University Associates, Tucson, AZ.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture:
Based on the Competing Values Framework, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Carter, E. (2008), “Successful change requires more than change management”, The Journal for
Quality and Participation, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 20-3.
Caruth, D., Middlebrook, B. and Rachel, F. (1995), “Overcoming resistance to change”,
SAM Advance Management Journal, Vol. 50, pp. 23-7.
Chirico, F. and Salvato, C. (2008), “Knowledge integration and dynamic organizational
adaptation in family firms”, Family Business Review, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 169-81.
Choi, T.Y. and Behling, O.C. (1997), “Top managers and TQM success: one more look after all
these years”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 11, pp. 37-49.
Coch, L. and French, J.R.P. (1948), “Overcoming resistance to change”, Human Relations, Vol. 1,
pp. 512-32.
Collins, J. (2001), Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don’t,
HarperCollins, New York, NY.
Connor, D.R. (1992), Managing the Speed of Change: How Resilient Managers Succeed and
Prosper when Others Fall, Villard Books, New York, NY.
Covin, T.J. and Kilmann, R.H. (1990), “Participant perceptions of positive and negative influences
on large-scale change”, Group and Organization Studies, Vol. 15, pp. 233-48.
David, F.R. (2006), Strategic Management: Concepts and Cases, 11th ed., Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Del Val, M.P. (2003), “Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical study”,
Management Decision, Vol. 41 Nos 1/2, pp. 148-55.
Dent, E.B. and Powley, E.H. (2003), “Employees actually embrace change: the chimera of
resistance”, Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 40-54.
LODJ Dym, B. (1999), “Resistance in organizations: how to recognize, understand and respond to it”,
OD Practitioner, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 6-19.
30,2
Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. and McNamara, R.T. (2001), “Resistance and the background conversations
of change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 105-21.
Galpin, T.J. (1996), The Human Side of Change: A Practical Guide to Organizational Redesign,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
180 Geisler, D. (2001), “Bottom-feeders: people who reject change”, Executive Excellence, Vol. 18
No. 12, p. 19.
Ghoshal, S. (1987), “Global strategy: an organizing framework”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 8, pp. 425-40.
Gilmore, T.N., Shea, G.P. and Unseem, M. (1997), “Side effects of corporate cultural
transformations”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 33, pp. 174-89.
Goodman, P.S., Bazerman, M. and Conlon, E. (1980), “Institutionalization of planned
organizational change”, in Staw, B.M. and Cummings, L.L. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Greenberg, J. and Baron, R.A. (2008), Behavior in Organizations, 9th ed., Prentice-Hall,
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C.R. (1988), “Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics
of strategic change”, Organizational Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 293-316.
Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S. and Harris, S.G. (2007), “Readiness for organizational
change: the systematic development of a scale”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 232-51.
Hoskisson, R.E., Eden, L., Lau, C.M. and Wright, M. (2000), “Strategies in emerging economies”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 249-67.
Hultman, K.E. (1995), “Scaling the wall of resistance”, Training and Development, October,
pp. 15-18.
Huy, Q. (2001), “Time, temporal capability, and planned change”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 601-23.
Jacobsen, J. (2008), “Avoiding mistakes of the past: lessons learned on what makes or breaks
quality initiatives”, The Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 4-9.
Judson, A.S. (1996), Changing Behavior in Organizations, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Cambridge,
MA.
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. and Jick, T.D. (1992), The Challenge of Organizational Change:
How Companies Experience it and Leaders Guide it, Free Press, New York, NY.
Karim, A. and Kathawala, Y. (2005), “The experience of manufacturing firms with the
implementation of different production philosophies: a United States survey”,
International Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 351-65.
Ketterer, R.F. and Chayes, M.M. (1995), “Executive development: finding and growing champions
of change”, in Nadler, D., Shaw, R. and Walton, E. (Eds), Discontinuous Change:
Leading Organizational Transformation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 35-44.
Kim, W.C. and Mauborgne, R.A. (1993), “Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top
management compliance with multi-nationals’ corporate strategic decisions”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 502-26.
Kissler, G.D. (1991), The Change Riders: Managing the Power of Change, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Klaus, L.A. (1997), “Minimize employee resistance to change by focusing on human side”, Organizational
Quality Progress, Vol. 30 No. 12, p. 12.
change
Klein, J.A. (1984), “Why supervisors resist employee involvement”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 62, pp. 87-94.
Kotter, J.P. (1995), “Leading change: why transformational efforts fail”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 59-67.
Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, HBS Press, Boston, MA. 181
Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1979), “Choosing strategies for change”, Harvard Business
Review, March-April, pp. 106-14.
Larkin, T.J. and Larkin, S. (1994), Communicating Change: How to Win Employee Support for
New Business Directions, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Leppitt, N. (2006), “Challenging the code of change: part 1. Praxis does not make perfect”,
Journal of Change Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 121-42.
Lerman, R.I. and Schmidt, S.R. (2002), “An overview of economic, social, and demographic trends
affecting the labor market”, report to the Urban Institute for US Department of Labor,
available at: www.dol.gov (accessed December 27, 2002).
Lewin, K. (1947), “Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science;
social equilibria and social change”, Human Relations, Vol. 1, pp. 5-41.
McCall, M.W. Jr (1993), “Developing leadership”, in Galbraith, J.R. and Lawler, E.E. (Eds),
Organizing for the Future, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 170-84.
Maslow, A.H. (1987), Motivation and Personality, 3rd ed., Addison-Wesley, Boston, MA.
Maurer, R. (1996), Beyond the Wall of Resistance: Unconventional Strategies that Build Support
for Change, Bard Books, Inc., Austin, TX.
Mink, O.G. (1992), “Creating new organizational paradigms for change”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 21-35.
Moorman, R.H. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship behavior?”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 845-55.
Nadler, D.A. (1998), Champions of Change: How CEOs and Their Companies Are Mastering the
Skills of Radical Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Nikolaou, I., Tomprou, M. and Vakolar, M. (2007), “Individuals’ inducements and the role of
personality: implications for psychological contracts”, Journal of Managerial Psychology,
Vol. 22 No. 7, pp. 649-63.
Nutt, P.C. (1986), “Tactics of implementation”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29,
pp. 230-61.
Palmer, I., Dunford, R. and Akin, G. (2006), Managing Organizational Change: A Multiple
Perspectives Approach, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York, NY.
Pascale, R., Millemann, M. and Gioja, L. (1997), “Changing the way we change”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 127-39.
Piderit, S.K. (2000), “Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional
view of attitudes toward an organizational change”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 25, pp. 783-94.
Robinson, S.L. and Rousseau, D.M. (1994), “Violating the psychological contract: not the
exception but the norm”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 15, pp. 245-59.
LODJ Rousseau, D.M. and Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999), “What’s a good reason to change? Motivated
reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change”, Journal of Applied
30,2 Psychology, Vol. 84, pp. 514-28.
Schultz, J.R. (2007), “Eight steps to sustain change”, Quality Progress, Vol. 40 No. 11, pp. 25-31.
Schweiger, D.M. and DeNisi, A.S. (1991), “Communication with employees following a merger:
a longitudinal field experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34, pp. 110-35.
182 Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), “Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 434-43.
Stanley, D.J., Meyer, J.P. and Topolnytsky, L. (2005), “Employee cynicism and resistance to
organizational change”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 429-59.
Visagie, J.C. and Botha, C.J. (1998), “Contextual and empirical approach to social change and
social responsibilities”, Management Decision, Vol. 26 No. 10, pp. 694-701.
Vithessonthi, C. (2007), “Perceptions affecting employee reactions to change: evidence from
privatization in Thailand”, Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 12 No. 1,
pp. 248-55.
Vollman, T.E. (1996), The Transformation Imperative: Achieving Market Dominance through
Radical Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Wanberg, C.R. and Banas, J.T. (2000), “Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a
reorganizing workplace”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 132-42.

Corresponding author
Dennis R. Self can be contacted at: selfd@troy.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints