Making Sense of Change Recipients’ Reactions
Managers‟ Sensemaking process on Change Recipients‟ Reactions to be
Resistance to Change, the Influence of the Institutional Environment, and the
View on Resistance to Change in Practice
Abstract
This study focuses on the role of the manager during organizational change. The following topics are studied and discussed: the managers‘ sensemaking process of change recipients‘ reactions to be resistance to change, how managers are influenced by the institutional environments in their sensemaking process, and the view of resistance to change is studied to find out whether the positive discourse in literature is also taking place in practice and which perspective is dominant in practice. This research expands the scientific knowledge on the role of the manager during organizational change. The needed data is collected through interviews and documentation in the profit and non-profit sector. Cases were randomly selected within these sectors and studied for theory development. The data is analyzed at three different levels. The first level of analysis is the respondents, the second level of analysis is the organization, and the third level of analysis is the sector.
The results show that managers notice a variety of change recipient reaction and that managers compare the reaction to their own beliefs, views and characteristics. The managers create intersubjective meaning by labeling and identifying attributes, beliefs, and views of the change recipient and affairs surrounding the change. The affairs surrounding the change also influence the attributes, beliefs, and views of change recipients. Managers are influenced by the institutional environment and internally cognitive constraint through their own past experiences of sensemaking of change recipients‘ reactions to be resistance to change. Furthermore, in practice: there is a positive model of resistance to change; resistance to change is viewed as a contribution effective change management and the change process; there is a distinction between two different kinds of resistance to change, passive resistance and active resistance and the dominant perspective on resistance to change is the psychological perspective.
This study is limited in multiple ways: the external validity of the study due to the qualitative nature of this study, this study only covers one side of the story which increased the chance of respondents‘ bias in this study and the study is limited by the instruments used in data collection.
Acknowledgements
I thank all the managers from the organizations for their valuable input, for their time in order to participate in this study, for their willingness to share their insights and experiences. I thank my co-students at the University of Groningen, for exchanging thoughts, considerations and help. And I thank my friends and family who supported me throughout the whole process. A special thanks to Louk Paul, my supervisor at the University of Groningen. For the guidance he provided during the process and his critical thinking regarding the study. It increased the quality of this study. I would also like to thank the second assessor, for the assessment of my thesis.
Introduction
The study of change recipients´ reactions towards change is one of the major topics in the research and practitioner literature on organizational change, and has been researched extensively (e.g. Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013). The research on this topic has covered antecedents, and the consequences of change recipients´ reactions towards change (Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011).
However, a topic that has received little attention is the role of the manager (Oreg et al., 2011) and the sensemaking of managers of change recipients‘ reactions towards change (Ford, Ford, & D´Amelio, 2008). Sensemaking has become a very important topic in organizational studies (Maitlin, & Christianson, 2014). Ford et al. (2008) focus on resistance as a product of managers‘ sensemaking. The question that still remains according to Ford et al. (2008) is:
„Why do agents call some actions resistance and not others?‟
Helms Mills (2003), and Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeldt (2005) comment that sensemaking intersects with institutional theory. Institutional theory focused initially on explaining how institutional structures of meaning affect organizational processes (Greenwood, & Suddaby, 2006). But institutional entrepreneurship, and change have become more the phenomenon of interest (Dacin, Goldstein, & Scott, 2002; He, & Baruch, 2009).
Pardo del Val and Fuentes state: „Resistance to change is a key topic in change management
and should be seriously considered to help the organization to achieve the advantages of the transformation‟ (2003: 148). In both literature and practice resistance to change is viewed as a
change literature the positive aspects of resistance have been receiving a lot more attention. Resistance to change is seen as a contribution to effective change management and the change process (Ford et al., 2008; Ford & Ford, 2009; Ford & Ford, 2010). Furthermore, Metselaar (1997) states that there are three dominant perspectives of resistance to change in literature. This study focuses on the managers‘ sensemaking process of change recipients‘ reactions to be resistance to change, and how managers are influenced by the institutional environments in their sensemaking process. Furthermore, the view of resistance to change is studied to find out whether the discourse in literature is also taking place in practice and which perspective is dominant in practice.
The theoretical interest is that this study adds knowledge on managers‘ sensemaking process of change recipients‘ reactions to be resistance to change and on the influence of the institutional environment on sensemaking for new theory building. The theoretical interest of the view on resistance to change by managers is because it can either lend support and additional weight to view resistance as a contributor to effective change management or it can be a discrepancy between literature and practice. Furthermore, this study expands the scientific knowledge in organizational change literature.
When taking, managers‘ sensemaking process of change recipients´ reactions to be resistance to change, the influence of the institutional environment on managers‘ the sensemaking on and the view of managers on resistance to change, the following research question is conceived:
„How do managers make sense of change recipient´s reactions to be resistance to change? How are managers influenced in the sensemaking of change recipients‟ reactions by the institutional environment? And what view do managers hold on resistance to change in their interpretive scheme?‟
Literature Review
Making Sense of Change Recipient´s Reactions
„Sensemaking involves the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing‟ (Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeldt, 2005: 409). Sensemaking
experience a violation of their expectations, or when they encounter an ambiguous event or issue that is of some significance to them‟ (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014: 77).
There are four themes in the definition of sensemaking (Maitlis, & Christianson, 2014). Sensemaking is dynamic, cues are involved, sensemaking is social, and the action people take to make sense which, in turn, enacts the environment that they seek to understand. Therefore sensemaking is defined as: ‟A process, prompted by violated expectations that involves
attending to and bracketing cues in the environment, creating intersubjective meaning through cycles of interpretation and action, and thereby enacting a more ordered environment from which further cues can be drawn‟ (Maitlis & Christianson, 2014: 67).
Change is recognized as a situation that violates expectations of the normal patterns of organization which calls for the enactment of new patterns by change recipients (Mintzberg, & Waters, 1985; Ford et al., 2008). Although Maitlis and Christianson (2013) only recognize two phases in sensemaking: how events become triggered for sensemaking and how intersubjective meaning is constructed (2013: 70). Weick et al. (2005) state that noticing, bracketing, labeling and categorizing are stages in the sensemaking process. Weick et al. (2005) do not provide definitions of these stages but from their article the following can be conceived: When faced with change, manager‘s experience or encounter change recipients´ reactions during these situations, they orient towards the change recipients and notice and bracket possible signs for closer attention. This noticing and bracketing is an incipient state of sensemaking. To understand how managers make sense of change recipients´ reactions knowledge is needed on how cues are extracted, and how they are used to make plausible sense and determine whether a change recipient is resistant to change (Weick et al., 2005). These cues could for example be a change in change recipient´s behavior.
Once bracketing has occurred and the world is simplified, the sensemaking process turns to labeling and categorizing. Because: „Sensemaking is about labeling and categorizing to
stabilize the streaming of experience‟ (Weick et al., 2005). For the construction of
organized into types of behavior in certain change situations are connected to certain change recipients.
Ford, et al. (2008) discuss the contribution of change agents to change recipients´ resistance to change, by (mis)labeling the reactions of change recipients´ as resistance to change. Ford et al. (2008) describe two sensemaking processes in which sensemaking of managers can possibly contribute to resistance labels, self-fulfilling prophecies and scapegoating. Eventually Ford et al. (2008) ask the question: „Why do they call some actions resistance and
not others?‟ They mention some studies that looked into the labeling of change recipients‘
reactions. However, according to Ford et al. (2008) these studies yield unsatisfactory explanations such as any recipient response can be labeled resistance (e.g. Meston & Kings, 1996). Because of the lack of satisfying explanations for why managers call some actions resistance and not others, the question of Ford et al. (2008) remains unanswered.
The Institutional Environment
This study examines how the frames of managers have a resonance with, or are derived from the wider institutional environment, and thereby influencing the sensemaking process of managers concerning change recipients‘ reactions. According to Dacin et al. (2002) institutional theory has risen to prominence as a popular and powerful explanation for both individual and organizational action. Several studies have researched the impact, effect, and influence of the institutional environment, however little is known of the effect and influence of the institutional environment on sensemaking (Maitlis & Christianson, 2013: 104). An institutional environment is defined as the stable rules, social standards and cognitive structures in society that guide, favor or restrict business activity (Scott, 1995). The institutional environment influences the perceptions of desirability and feasibility, society‘s social and cultural environment, such as beliefs, values and attitudes, conditions behavior and decisions made by individuals (Diaz-Casero, Ferreira, Mogollón, & Barata Raposo, 2012). As Zucker (1983, adopted from Weick et al., 2005) puts it: ―Institutionalization simply constructs the way things are: alternatives may be literally unthinkable‖ (p. 5).
‗Structure, as recursively organized sets of rules and resources, is out of time and space, save in its instantiations and co-ordination as memory traces, and is marked by an 'absence of the subject'. The social systems in which structure is recursively implicated, on the contrary, comprise the situated activities of human agents, reproduced across time and space.‟ (p. 25).
Structure is not external, because of the traces of memory in the minds of individuals, and because of its inherence in social practices it is in a way more internal than external to the activities of individuals (Giddens, 1984).
Heracleous and Barret (2001) see the traces of memory, which Giddens (1984: 758) describes, as interpretive schemes and state that interpretive schemes mediate between (1) communicative action, which resonates from subjective meanings that individuals link to situations and that orient their actions, and (2) discursive structures that are persistent features of discourse that transcend individual texts. Chreim (2006: 1263) refers to the interpretive schemes that mediate between communicative action, and discursive structures as frames. These frames, which reside in the minds of people, guide understanding. Existing frames in organizations are seldom created only by the people who work there. They have a resonance with, or are derived, at least in part, from the wider institutional environment and occasionally shape the discourses in the environment (Chreim, 2006).
Institutional Environment and Sensemaking
The organizing aspect of sensemaking is treated as an activity that provides a more ordered environment (Maitlis & Christianson, 2013; Weick et al. 2005). Weick et al. (2005) link sensemaking and institutional theory and Weber and Glynn (2006) as well by discussing that institutions prime, edit, and trigger sensemaking (see figure 1).
Figure 1: Mechanisms Relating Institutional Context to Sensemaking (Barley & Tolbert,1997)
the institutional environment. Transformation represents the duality where institutions are enacted and accomplished in ongoing sensemaking processes (Weber & Glynn, 2006). Thus, former sensemaking processes become part of the institution.
Weber and Glynn (2006: 1640) argue that the view in which the link between institution and sensemaking consists of an internalized cognitive constraint „whereby institutions narrow how
and what sence can be made‟, is too simplistic and blocks richer theorizing. Weber and Glynn
(2006) therefore propose three mechanisms which are also part of the contextual category: priming, editing, and triggering (table 1).
Mechanism Description
Priming Institutions prime sensemaking, by providing social cues. Priming emphasizes the role of (local) situational context over the (larger-scale) macro-institutional setting.
Editing Institution edits sensemaking through social feedback processes. At first deviances of the expectations in the institutional environment is allowed, but through social feedback processes it is turned towards the stable rules, social standards, and cognitive structures in the environment. These social feedback processes are meetings with peers in which the subject is discussed.
Triggering Institutions trigger sensemaking, posing puzzles for sensemaking through endogenous institutional contradiction and ambivalence. Institutions may trigger sensemaking in two ways: first, by providing dynamic foci that demand continued attention. An example is: „when former colleagues are promoted to
managerial roles where they are expected to act as representatives of the employer rather than as a fellow employee. Here, the expectations for different positions remain the same but there is individual mobility that requires
sensemaking around the changed identities‟. And second, by creating puzzles
that require sensemaking due to the contradictions, ambiguities and gaps that are inherent in institutions.
Table 1: Description of Mechanisms (Weber & Glynn, 2006: 1648-1653)
Hedstrom and Swedberg argue that when we want to explain the link between sensemaking and institutions we need to show: ‗how macro states at one point in time influence the behavior of individual actors, and how these actions generate new macro states at a later time‘ (1998: 21).
Resistance to Change
As stated earlier, the view of managers hold on resistance to change in their interpretive scheme is part of this study. There are many studies that see resistance as an irrational, unavoidable behavioral response to change (e.g. Lewin, 1948; Gray & Stark, 1984) and thereby should overcome or deal with resistance to change (e.g. Coch & French, 1948; Kotter & Schlessinger, 1979). Recent literature has a more positive image of resistance to change. Resistance to change is a form of feedback which you can use as a resource to find your way for a better solution (Ford & Ford, 2009). Ford et al. (2008), Msweli-Mbanga and Potwana (2006), and Piderit (2000) also stress the positive side of resistance, because it involves a process that fosters organizational learning.
Metselaar (1997) distinguishes two models of resistance to change: a negative model of resistance to change and a positive model of resistance to change (table 2).
Negative model of resistance Positive model of resistance
Labeling resistance as:
Unavoidable reaction to organizational change Undesired response
Unhealthy harmful reaction to change efforts
Expression of disapproval
Avoidable reaction to organizational change
Legitimate response
Healthy beneficial reaction to change efforts
Expression of concern
Focus on: Fighting and minimizing resistance Understanding and responding to resistance Strategies for overcoming resistance: Negotiation Manipulation Coercion
(working against resistance)
Communication Participation Facilitation
(working with resistance) View on
organizations:
Organizations are traditionally designed for stability and control
Organizations have built-in
mechanisms to cope with change and renewal
View on organizational change:
Organizational change is collective systems change
(changing systems)
Organizational change is collective behavioral change
(changing people)
Alongside the models of resistance there are three dominant perspectives on resistance to change in literature (Metselaar, 1997). These perspectives are: the political perspective, the social perspective, and the psychological perspective (table 2).
Perspective Description
Political Perspective
From a political point of view, organizations are coalitions and made up of coalitions. From this perspective change may be resisted because it leads to alternations in the existing balances of power between coalitions. Lines of authority and use of rules might alter as a result of change processes, leading to a struggle for power among interest groups.
Social Perspective
From a social point of view, organizations are socially constructed realities. From this perspective resistance develops during the course of social interaction. Causes of resistance might lie in group norms as much as in the attitudes of individual employees.
Psychological Perspective
From a psychological point of view, persons confronted with change strive for a balance between change and stability. The causes of resistance might lie in the perception of a constant threat to the status quo, leading to lower levels of well-being, motivation and satisfaction.
Table 3: Description of Perspectives (Metselaar, 1997: 20)
The discourse towards a positive image of resistance to change and the themes of resistance to change reside in theory. The interest is whether the discourse and themes are also reflected in practice.
Research Methodology
Single-case studies are common in the sensemaking literature (Maitlin & Christianson, 2014) while it provides deep insight it makes it difficult to compare patterns across contexts to specify potential boundary conditions on theory (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). „Methods
that compare multiple instances of sensemaking (…) can provide an additional insight‟
(Maitlin & Christianson, 2014:107). By using multiple data collection methods, stronger substantiation of constructs and propositions will be provided (Eisenhardt, 1989, p. 538). Therefore a multiple case study design was used in this study.
were managers that experienced the substantial organizational change, and experienced or encountered change recipients‘ reactions.
The first case was a mental healthcare organization operating in the public sector. The change at GGZ Drenthe was the reorganization of both work places and ways of working. This meant merging several parts of the organization, a content switch in the provision of care, and meeting quality requirements. There were three managers who agreed to be respondent from this case.
The second case was a regional unit of the national Police which provides public services to the community. As of 2013 the Police in the Netherlands were nationalized and restructured for financial, control, and resource capacity reasons. The Police formerly consisted of twenty-six autonomous units with each their own responsible chief. This was changed to eleven units with one responsible chief. The unit was one of the eleven units. This case had two respondents.
The third case was a merger of two regional banks of a large financial corporation in the profit sector. The change was initiated for scale to comply with laws and regulations, and cost containment. This change meant layoffs within the organizations and a merger of two different cultures. There were two managers who agreed to be respondent from this case. The fourth case was an organization in the automotive industry in the profit sector. The organizations changed their strategy in the automotive industry to comply with external changes. This strategic change meant changing ways of working and organizational values, and more integration between functions within the organization. This case had two respondents.
The selected research approach within the cases was the critical incident technique. The critical incident technique (CIT) is a proven qualitative research approach that offers a step-by-step approach to collecting and analysing data about human activities and their significance to the people involved (Hughes, 2007). „To be critical the incident must occur in
a situation where the purpose or intend of the act seems fairly clear to the observer and where its consequences are sufficiently definite to leave little doubt concerning its effects‟ (Flanagan,
1954: 327). In this study the critical incident were the reactions of change recipients.
interview procedure, which facilitates the investigation of significant occurrences (events, incidents, processes, or issues), identified by the respondent, the way they were managed, and the outcomes in terms of perceived effects. The objective is to gain an understanding of the incident from the perspective of the individual‟ (Cassel & Symon, 2004: 48). The literature
provided the base for the interviews which ensures construct-validity. The interviews were held in Dutch for approximately one hour, and were transcribed afterwards for coding. Each respondent was asked to provide documentation on the organizational change (e.g. project plan, correspondence, and progress reports).
The data analysis was done by coding both the interviews and documents. Codes are tags or labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 56). The deductive codes, these codes were my provisional ‗start list‘ of codes prior to fieldwork, were used for analysis (table 4). The results of the interviews, and the documentation were coded. Pattern coding was used to identify an emergent theme, configuration, and/or explanation (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This meant that first codes were constructed for summarizing segments of data. Inductive codes, codes after fieldwork, were generated by analytic readings, topic changes, and underlying concepts. By this inductive coding important issues for participants were revealed instead of issues by the researcher perspective, which is valuable for theory development (Hennink, Hutter, & Bailey, 2010). The inductive codes emerged throughout the coding process which entailed coding one case after another using the same codes and adding codes when needed. Those codes were then grouped together into smaller number of sets, themes or constructs.
Deductive Codes
Code name: Description:
Sensemaking Process
Noticing Experiencing a violation of their expectations, or encounters an ambiguous event or issue that is of some significance to them
Bracketing Considering possible signs for closer attention, the core aspect of the violation or encounter.
Labeling & Categorizing
Units of meaning are assigned to change recipients‘ reactions and it is organized into types of behavior in certain change situations are connected to certain change recipients.
Self-fulfilling prophecies
Institutional Mechanisms
Institutional Environment
Stable rules, social standards and cognitive structures in society that guide, favor or restrict business activity
Priming Institution provides social cues in the situational context to prime sensemaking.
Editing Institution edits sensemaking through social feedback processes. At first deviances of the expectations in the institutional environment is allowed, but through social feedback processes it is turned towards the stable rules, social standards, and cognitive structures in the environment
Triggering by dynamic foci
Institutions trigger sensemaking by providing dynamic foci that require sensemaking due to the contradictions, ambiguities and gaps that are inherent in institutions
Triggering by puzzles
Institution triggers sensemaking by creating puzzles for sensemaking through contradiction and ambiguity within the institution
Cognitive constraint
Behaving according to the script as a result of taken-for-granted ways of thinking
Resistance to Change
Political perspective
Change is resisted because it leads to alternations in the existing balances of power between coalitions
Social perspective
Resistance develops during the course of social interaction. Psychological
perspective
Persons resist because they are confronted with change that upsets the balance between change and stability
Reactions on Change Recipients’ Reactions
Communication Using education and communication to help other develop an understanding of the change initiative, what is required of them, and why it‘s important
Participation Getting others involved. To bring in new energy and ideas and cause people to believe they can be part of the change.
Facilitation Providing access to guidance and other forms of support to aid in adaptation to change.
Negotiation Explicit deals are made with individuals and groups affected by the change.
Manipulation Engaging those who are neutral or opposed to the change in discussions and engaging in exaggerating behavior.
Coercion Insisting that changes be done
Table 4: Deductive Codes
context was analyzed for the influence of the institutional environment. The third level of analysis was the sector to analyze the further influence of the institutional environment and the view on resistance to change in practice.
A conceptually clustered matrix was used to analyze, and compare at the first level of analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994: 127-131). The matrix was constructed using both deductive and inductive codes. By using a conceptually clustered matrix the data can be used to build theory. To increase internal validity the advice of Miles & Huberman (1994: 254) acted as a guideline during the data analysis.
For identifying a theme or a pattern the number of times and the consistency in the way it happens are considered (Miles & Huberman, 1994:253). While analyzing the data a colleague checked whether the researcher interpreted and analyzed the data in the correct way to decrease the chance of researchers‘ bias and increase the chain of evidence.
Results
The results are structured by the levels of analysis discussed earlier. Within each sections the individual managers, the organization or sector is described. The results are then summarized, conclusions are drawn and propositions are constructed. The final codebook after fieldwork can be found in appendix A.
First level of analysis: Respondents
The critical incidents and the sensemaking process of the managers are discussed in this section of the results. The incidents are then summarized in a conceptually clustered matrix (table 5) from which conclusions are drawn and propositions are constructed.
The first manager works in mental health care which was reorganizing at the time. He and his colleagues were responsible for the execution of the change. During this change process the manager noticed that he didn‘t expect that some people would be that inflexible during change. „You have an image of that person (…) and that you think and have scanned that
person. Well I think he‟s going to change, yes that would be great. And when you talk to him that the person comes with all kinds of questions, with I don‟t want to leave this place yet, and I don‟t want to change‟. The image the manager had of that person conflicted with the
work at a certain time which is going to change, it‘s a process of grief and loss. Subsequently the manager labeled the change recipient reaction as resistance. „There‟s where the resistance
to change comes from‟. As a counter reaction the manager communicated the importance and
the need of the change to employees.
Furthermore, the first manager indicated another critical incident. There were crucial functions that needed to be filled in. During this process the manager noticed a hidden conflict against management. „Crucial functions you try to work them out, but then there is a hidden
conflict towards management underneath the surface. That the person talked differently to employees, about the employees, than the person did to us. (…) Against team members saying: “I think it‟s ridiculous that you have to leave”‟. The manager had difficulty with this
change recipient reaction. „I think its way out of line‟. According to the manager it had to do with the rejection for a position which the person wanted. „We thought the person wasn‟t
suited for the position the person wanted‟. The manager considered the reaction to be passive
aggressiveness from the persons‘ resistance. „It‟s just a form of passive aggressiveness that
comes from that persons‟ resistance‟.
The first manager acknowledges that education helped him in dealing with resistance. „What
helped was that I went on to study in leadership and change management‟. The manager goes
on by stating: „There are lots of people who have written about grief and loss and about
change‟. „Sometimes you just have to let things be, that is also part of the grief and loss process. (…) that‟s the underlying theme grief and loss. You have to be aware of that and you don‟t need to take that resistance from people. That you have to take care of their resistance‟.
The second manager was active in the same environment as the first manager as a team manager. The manager saw that employees started to think for the client. The manager noticed the questioning of a change recipient concerning the privacy of clients. „”Do they like
that? And what about the privacy?”‟ The manager thought it wasn‘t relevant. „Yes, you don‟t have permission to share information, but when it concerns your own team it is in my opinion not relevant, because you are colleagues‟. Thereafter the manager said that the cause of the
reaction was that the change recipients wanted to hold on to the current structures and ways of working regarding the clients. According to the manager this was a result of the history of the organization. The manager labeled the change recipient reaction as resistance to change.
„What I did was mostly getting people involved in the change, and say I would like to do things differently‟.
The second manager experienced another critical incident concerning the production. The employees are required to pay attention to the payments for health care. The registration and production of health care. „There was resistance towards production. “What is it? Can I
influence it? Why 80%?” Registering properly, registering everything‟. The manager did
expect this reaction for change recipients. „I kind of expected that reaction that people would
have difficulty with talking about production‟. The manager had talked with people about the
subject production before, and experienced the same reaction. The manager indicated the history as the cause of the reaction concerning production.
The third manager which was also active in the mental health care organization supported the teams during the change through for instance, information and communication. During the change process the manager could identify a critical incident and noticed some change recipients‘ reactions. „You notice that people actually, “I‟m too busy to be doing that” or that
they say: “But were already doing that”, but that isn‟t what really happens (…) that is weird‟.
The manager states that therefore the implementation is lacking. „It isn‟t being finished and
I‟ve always been a natural finisher‟. The manager compared the change recipients‘ reaction to
his own characteristics and identified the cause of the reaction. ‗It is difficult for people to
work in a different way. You see they could fill in how they wanted to do their work‟. But the
manager thought this was also influenced by the history in the organization. „You can say that
people are shaken up by the whole reorganization, they have been slumbering for years. Actually, they could shape and do their work for years and now they suddenly have to change‟. The manager considered the reaction of the change recipients to be resistance to
change. The counter reaction of the manager was to talk about the importance of the change and to involve the change recipients in the change.
The third manager experiences more change recipients‘ reactions. „People questioned the
change in general‟, but he expected these reactions. „I expected that because I know this little world of course. I‟ve been doing this for sort of thirty years (…) and I also saw how the other departments were struggling to think that way, including the managers‟. The manager
determined that it had to do with the history of the organization. „It was what people were
manager believed that these reactions were resistance to change. „It‟s all continuous
resistance‟. This refers to the change recipients‘ reactions.
Furthermore, the third manager indicates what steps to take when confronted certain change recipient reactions. The manager acknowledges that it helped him in considering what change path to follow in different situations by following a course in change management.
The fourth manager was active in the restructuring of the regional police unit. The manager was, together with a colleague, responsible for the merger of two police stations and was sub-project leader of the service concept of the regional unit. During this process the manager was surprised that people were more concerned with themselves than with the organization. „I
don‟t understand that they can‟t look transcending at the organization, but are only concerned with themselves. How the change affects them‟. The manager considered this to be
resistance to change, because it‘s not in correspondence with his beliefs. ‗That has to do with
myself. I like change, I belief change is beautiful‟. According to the manager it has to do with
that people want to hold on to familiar situations. „These people are against the change, they
are conservative. So the natural resistance is there‟. As a counter reaction to the change
recipients‘ reaction the manager did the following: „Explaining the rational, the influence they
can exert. Explain, explain, explain, take them with you in the change, make them think about the change, make them owner of the change and involve them in the change‟. The training the
manager received helped him in his counter-reaction. The content of the training was directed at which change recipient reaction you can expect and how you deal with this. „It has
everything to do with how you are connected to your people. How you involve them in everything. If something comes up, how do you deal with that? Do you walk away or are you going to dive in?‟
During another incident the manager experienced when people questioned the change and were dispassionate about the change it was expected. „I‟ve experienced multiple changes in
the past of course. (…). We are just like real people and people don‟t like to change in nature. Although one part of us does like to change, but for the bigger part people love the security, familiarity, and clarity. That is also what is happening here, so when change is coming, resisting it by nature‟.
skepticism in whether they needed to change to a different location. „”First, let‟s see if
something will happen before it‟s actually happening”‟. The manager found it surprising,
because she thinks that the change is already happening. „I think it is surprising that those
people don‟t have the idea of when they are going to relocate. But the word relocation isn‟t part of their world, so that surprises me. (…) that they deny that the relocation is coming‟. As
a counter reaction the manager used communication. The manager talked with these people and discussed that she doesn‘t have a doubt the relocation is going to happen. „I talked about,
that there is no discussion for me whether the relocation is coming or not (…), and I hope that those people are going to think about the relocation‟. The manager determined that the cause
of the change recipients‘ reactions to be the history of the organization. „In the past many
proposed changes weren‟t executed, were postponed, or were eventually different from the proposed changes on paper‟. The manager indicated that these change recipients‘ reactions
were denial and ultimately resistance to change. „It‟s denial and if you follow it through you
can say it‟s resistance‟. The manager didn‘t experience anymore unexpected reactions of
change recipients. Subsequently, the manager stated: ‗I learned from practice how people
react in certain situations‟.
The sixth manager worked at one of the regional banks and was active in the merger between the two regional banks. His role was to take his people along in the merger and unite his people with the people who had the same function at the other bank. During the change process the manager noticed that the reaction of people was that they were worried about their own skin. „People focus and worry about their own skin. For example: “What does this mean
for my job? Will my job still exist?” (...) It‟s mainly about the people themselves‟. According
to the manager this depends on the individual motives of people. „One thinks in opportunities
and the other in threats. (…) It is also age. I have some older colleagues in my team who think, for the years that I have left. They think, I don‟t believe that‟s something I‟m going to worry about (…). But that also depends on individual motives. They don‟t see themselves studying again or doing something different‟. The manager was surprised by this reaction,
because he has a different mindset. „I‟m someone who thinks in opportunities, I don‟t see
change as a threat‟. The manager saw this reaction as resistance to change. The manager
counter reacted by supporting people, but it differed among individuals how much support was needed. „That person needs some support to adapt to the change and others don‟t (…) it
about the change. The manager didn‘t experience anymore unexpected reactions from people.
„Not in this change process, because I‟ve experienced a merger, so it isn‟t new for me‟.
The same manager stated was exposed to the subject resistance to change through education.
„Over time you do management education and trainings. (…) master classes about resistance to change and how to deal with resistance and etc. etc.‟ The manager indicates that he uses
the information from his education in his work and in this change process.
The seventh manager was also active in the merger between the regional banks. Just as the sixth manager he was responsible for taking his people along in the change, and the managers‘ role was also to join the different ways of working into one new way of working. The manager experienced that people were aware of the change. „Well people are aware that
we are up scaling. People are also aware of the need to do that. (…) and you have a group of people that can handle change. So the undertone is mostly positive‟. During the change
process the manager didn‘t experience surprising reactions from change recipients. „The
community in which the other bank is active is of course a special community in nature and that was also what I saw in the conversation with employees. It all went as I expected‟. The
manager did see that people reacted professionally when it became clear that some people would lose their job, although they don‘t really show how they are feeling. „If you have some
knowledge of human nature, then you can sense whether it‟s from the heart or the head. And I see many people react from the head and I also expected that‟. The manager believed this had
to do with a counter reaction on resistance to change. It‟s also professional behavior wherein
people are more and more aware of, when I express resistance it triggers a counter reaction‟.
The manager hadn‘t experienced any reactions that he believed to be resistance to change. The eighth manager was active in the strategy change at the organization in the automotive industry. The manager was concerned with taking his people from research and development along in the change, and integrating work functions. During this change process the manager noticed multiple reactions from change recipients: „I need all the designs before I can
purchase the needed materials‟ and „Why do I need to talk to production already? Then I can do it again later on‟. The cause of these reactions was according to the manager the history of
being a very functional organization. „We‟ve been it this way for sixteen years, and that is why
it brings uncertainty‟. The manager himself has worked at a matrix organization earlier on in
cause of these reactions was fear of responsibility. „It‟s also fear of people, because at the
moment you say something early in the process than it is your problem later on. (…) So it‟s also more responsibility, more responsibility in the process which people take‟. The manager
believed the reactions to be resistance to change as well. „Yes those reactions are resistance‟. As a counter reaction the manager communicated about the change. „The strength of that is
the repetition of the message‟.
The ninth manager was also active in the strategy change. The manager is head of the production at multiple sites and is responsible for the realization of the strategy in production. During the change process encountered a critical incident where the manager noticed the following change recipient reaction: „We don‟t know yet how to do that. The client won‟t
exactly tell us what to do‟. The manager thought the reaction was alarming. „A number of people didn‟t see that you can think ahead despite the lack of information from a client‟. More
reactions the manager noticed were: „A number of colleagues thought it was ridiculous that
(…) set such demands‟. And: „Nonsense we‟ve been doing it this way for years and all of a sudden (…) is being difficult‟. The manager believed that the cause was that people want to
hold on to current ways and history. „You want to continue in a familiar way. You are best
known with familiar processes. The manager also indicated that it‟s also caused by the twenty year history of doing it this way‟. The manager also recognized that people who work had
been working in the organization for a shorter period of time had less difficulty with the change. „I see that people that have been working here in the same work surrounding for a
long time are having more difficulty than someone who has been working here for three or four years (…). In fact I think that we have been protected for change here, so get used to it‟.
The manager counter reacted by making people think about the change. „I mostly asked if they
could create two or three propositions of their own. Then you have to start thinking without saying (…) and then people become slowly into the change process instead of being resistant‟.
The manager also explained the situation to employees. „The employees from top to bottom,
literally, need to be explained to that the clients demands aren‟t ridiculous‟.
The ninth manager also noticed reactions towards the transformation from a dayshift organization to a double shift organization. „You can see that people think (...) a lot of people
say: “Different shifts aren‟t for me, you don‟t need to ask me that‟. The manager can imagine
that response, but he is convinced that it is the direction the organization is going. The manager indicates that the cause of the reaction from people is their private life. „It has an
to be a form of resistance. „It‟s a light form of resistance‟. The manager expected these reactions, because he was in a similar situation with his former employer. „With my former
employer we also went from a dayshift organization to a double shift organization‟.
According to the manager they do provide transition arrangements for employees.
Furthermore, the ninth manager indicated that he was educated about change and resistance. He followed a training regarding how to deal with people. „What kind of emotions can be
expected? Are you going to attack? When someone says: “This is worthless”. Try to get informed and ask questions on the matter‟.
The critical incidents of the managers are conceptually clustered to get an overview of the different stages in the sensemaking process (see table 5).
Sensemaking process of Change Recipients’ Reactions
Manager Noticing Bracketing Labeling & Categorizing Counter reaction
1 Yes
Questioning
Conflicting image
Certainties, Personal life & Resistance
Communication
Yes
Hidden conflict
Comparison Own skin, Passive aggressive resistance
2 Yes
Questioning
Comparison Holding on, History & Resistance
Participation No, past experiences
Questioning
History, Resistance
3 Yes
Too busy & already doing that
Comparison Work identity, History & Resistance
Communication & Participation
No, past experiences & situation comparison
Questioning
History, Resistance
4 Yes
Own skin
Comparison Holding on & Resistance Communication, Participation & Ownership No past experiences Questioning Resistance by nature 5 Yes Skeptical
Comparison History, Denial & Resistance
Communication 6 Yes
Own skin
Comparison Individual motives, Age & Resistance
Communication & Facilitation 7 No, past experiences
Awareness
Desired behavior
8 Yes
Deviating
Comparison History, Fear of Responsibility &
opinion & Questioning Resistance 9 Yes Don‘t know, Thinking ahead
Comparison Holding on, History, Change Experience & Resistance
Communication & Ownership No, past experiences
Resignation
Private life & Resistance Facilitation
Table 5: Conceptually Clustered Matrix Sensemaking process
All but one manager noticed change recipients‘ reactions. For instance, denying that the change is going to happen, resigning from the change by having little to no interest in the change, or saying that they already work that way. Although the respondents noticed different change recipients‘ reactions, the reactions themselves were so diverse that it didn‘t reveal a pattern in the first stage of sensemaking.
In the next stage of the sensemaking process, bracketing, there‘s one theme that is in considering signs for closer attention. The mechanism was that the managers compared the change recipients‘ reaction with themselves. It revolved around the correspondence with their beliefs, views and characteristics. When they wouldn‘t react in the same way as the change recipients and thereby didn‘t understand or were baffled by the reaction or when the message of the change recipients‘ reactions didn‘t correspond with the beliefs or views of the managers it was a sign for closer attention.
The causes that were identified in the four cases have two themes: the attributes, beliefs and views of the change recipient, and the affairs surrounding the change recipient. Individual motives, way of working, or change experience of the change recipients are examples of the attributes, beliefs and views of the change recipient. The history and culture of the organization are examples of affairs surrounding the change recipients. The affairs surrounding the change are also affecting the attributes, beliefs and views of the change recipient. An example is the influence of history on the change recipients change experience. The same is true for the work identity of change recipients. The circumstances, history and culture of the organization also hold a contributing factor for the attributes, beliefs and views of the change recipient. Although the reactions differ and the identified causes vary the managers do believe it is resistance to change. The managers hold different views on resistance, but this will be discussed in the third level of analysis.
the sensemaking process doesn‘t begin with noticing in those critical incidents and is influenced by the past experiences where the managers already made sense of the change recipients‘ reactions. The managers already gave intersubjective meaning to similar change recipient reactions. According to Weber and Glynn (2006) those are transformed and represent the duality where institutions are enacted and accomplished in ongoing sensemaking processes. In the identified critical incidents by the managers they didn‘t rethink the change recipients‘ reactions. They used taken-for-granted ways of thinking to provide intersubjective meaning to the change recipients‘ reactions and are thereby internally cognitive constrained by the institutional environment which they created themselves.
Education provides the managers with information and knowledge on what kind of change recipients‘ reactions you can expect during a certain change context or situation and how to deal with these reactions. And by expecting certain reactions, there‘s no violation of their expectations or an encounter of an ambiguous event or issue when they experience these change recipients‘ reactions. Neither does the manager have to bracket possible signs for closer attention, because the manager uses taken-for-granted ways of thinking concerning the change recipient reaction provided by education. However there is no data regarding the actual use of this information and therefore conclusions can‘t be drawn and propositions can‘t be constructed.
The following propositions can be constructed about the sensemaking process of managers regarding change recipients‘ reactions to be resistance to change:
P1: Managers bracket signs for closer attention by comparing the change recipients‟ reaction with their own beliefs and/or characteristics.
P2a: Managers label and identify attributes, beliefs and views of the change recipient and affairs surrounding the change recipient as the cause of change recipients‟ reactions. P2b: Managers are aware that the attributes, beliefs and views of the change recipient are
influenced by the affairs surrounding the change recipient.
Second level of analysis: Organization
In the second level analysis the organization at which the change takes place is the point of interest. The situational interactions of the managers at the different organizations are discussed.
The managers within the mental health care organization the managers all had contact with colleagues concerning the change recipients‘ reactions. „I‟ve got regular contact with
colleagues about this. Now and then I hear some narratives‟. The managers inform each other
and have hints towards each other. „We have some hints towards each other‟. In this organization the interactions between the managers is about the reactions of change recipients and about how you should deal with the reactions. The managers communicate about resistance to change with almost all their colleagues. „This is always part of the conversation
among us‟. One notable statement of a manager was: „you do notice that you are been watched by colleagues and hé how are you going handle that? Because it is not acceptable what your colleague is doing‟. The manager emphasized the hints his colleagues are giving
him. Although there are situational interactions among the managers at the mental health care organization concerning resistance to change, the managers couldn‘t provide examples of beliefs, rules or views that were being shared through social feedback processes.
Within the regional police unit colleagues communicate a lot concerning types of resistance.
„We communicate a lot about these types of resistance with colleagues‟. Change and
resistance are common topics of conversation at the regional police unit. „The concepts
change and resistance are, I would say, almost daily conversation topics with the Police. (…). It‟s a daily theme in our work. (…) Resistance in the organization, resistance in work. We have resistance in all sorts of ways. That‟s also part of the standard operations, so we have been trained. Now and then resistance arises on certain subjects‟. The managers receive
training at the regional police unit concerning change and resistance. The information and knowledge that is discussed in the training is shared with colleagues. „Now and then you
receive training and everything what you‟re being told can then be passed on to others. There are many conversations and a lot of information sharing among us. That happens within this organization also besides this subject matter anyway‟. Although one of the key messages of
Resistance to change is also a conversation topic at the regional banks. When managers identify a reaction they pass it on to colleagues. „We noticed something and it might be good
that you know that as well. (…). One time (…) says: “Hé have you heard what happened there?” or “Have you seen what happened there?” and then you have to do something with that‟. There are meetings at the regional banks where change recipients‘ reactions are
discussed. „Every manager takes a number of processes or a number of things, projects, he‟s
doing and obviously we also have meetings among managers themselves and then you exchange those kinds of things‟. The managers keep each other posted and talk with one
another about resistance to change. „In general we have the same thoughts on the matter. We
keep each other focused‟. However no example was available for deeper understanding of the
interactions amongst colleagues.
The management team in the automotive industry converse with one another about their experiences and beliefs regarding change recipients‘ reactions according to one of the managers, but there is a lack of data concerning the situational interactions of managers at the automotive organization due to errors of the researcher.
Although there are social processes amongst colleagues within each organization there is a lack of data on the interactions among managers concerning the influence of the institutional environment on the sensemaking processes of change recipients‘ reactions. Therefore no conclusions can be drawn and propositions can‘t be constructed.
Third level of analysis: Sector
In this section of the results the view on resistance to change in the profit and non-profit sector is discussed and analyzed.
Resistance to change is viewed in two different kinds of resistance to change in the profit sector. Within the profit sector a distinction is made between passive behaviors and consciously naming your resistance towards change. „I find my job easy now, it‟s ingrained
behavior, and I like to keep this up for another twenty-five years. That‟s a different kind of resistance from people who can consciously name their resistance and discuss their reasons for it‟. A similar view on distinguishing forms of resistance is hidden resistance and acting out
resistance. „You‟ve got much hidden resistance. “I‟ll do my job”, but it‟s still difficult. It‟s the
latter‟. The passive resistance and hidden resistance are considered to be the lightest form of
resistance. „The lightest form of resistance is not expressing, so that people hear about the
change and think: “Whatever. Were just going home and then it will be over”. (...) It‟s a light form of resistance, but it does bother you‟
Although it is bothering the image of resistance in the profit sector is positive. „I think
resistance itself is very good. It means that you are consciously engaged with your craft. If people were as easy to move as sheep, how engaged are you in your craft? I belief that resistance is a confirmation about how consciously engaged you are in your craft‟. And it is
viewed as potential drivers behind the change. „What you see there is that people need to be
immensely convinced by someone, but when they are convinced they run harder than any other. They become ambassadors; those are the people you need to get involved in the process‟.
The perspective in the profit sector is that change is upsetting. „You can see that people are so
worried that they begin to feel psychologically bad. That coming to work again is difficult for them. We even had a colleague who said: “I need help, because this morning I was planning my suicide”. That‟s how far it goes, that was just a man who can‟t handle working in a big group of people and was so reluctant to work in double shifts‟. Resistance comes from the
uncertainty people have to deal with. „I see resistance to change mostly as having uncertainty,
a bit of doubt. Or something that was working in the past, why does it need to change now? What is the new and what does it mean for me? Those are the mostly the ingredients through which resistance occurs‟. And it is part of people to postpone change when you have to deal
with uncertainty. „I think it‟s part of people to postpone change. And you‟d rather trust the
things you know if you are uncertain about the future‟.
In the non-profit sector a similar distinction in resistance to change is made. „I see resistance
in two forms. Passive resistance, which I can‟t work with, and active resistance, which has energy. That‟s a potential source, because when there is energy it can be transformed. And passive resistance is lack of energy (…) that‟s a role of sticky tape without a beginning. Active resistance is a ball of wool which always has a beginning and an end‟. Passive resistance lies
also in the way change recipients communicate. „Passive resistance is resistance that isn‟t
easily expressed in a group, but is expressed in superficial contact, mostly through e-mail‟.
The image of resistance to change is that it can help. „Resistance isn‟t necessarily great, but
they might have a point‟. In the non-profit sector a positive side of resistance to change is
recognized, because it can make a difference in the change process. „A positive side of
resistance can be that when someone starts thinking about his resistance (…) and let other influences in. That can make a bigger difference in the process then when you unthinkingly accept the change‟.
The perspective in the non-profit sector is that uncertainty is part of change and that change recipients therefore believe that it‘s threatening and dangerous. „I don‟t know what‟s coming
at me, so it must be threatening and thereby dangerous‟. Or when change recipients need to
do something that isn‘t part of their usual work. „They need to do something different, than
you have resistance‟. Resistance is seen as a natural reaction to change. That people want to
hold on to the present situation. ‗We are just like real people and people don‟t like to change
in nature. Although one part of us does like to change, but for the bigger part people love the security, familiarity, and clarity. That is also what is happening here, so when change is coming, resisting it by nature‟.
There aren‘t different views on resistance in the different institutional environments when considering the views in both sectors. In the profit and the non-profit a distinction was made between two kinds of resistance: passive resistance to change and active resistance to change. All of the counter reactions in both the profit as the non-profit sector are part of the positive model of resistance to change. Another reaction on change recipients‘ reactions in both sectors was making people owner and responsible for the change. Next to the counter reaction, in both of the sectors a positive image of resistance to change was expressed. Resistance is seen as a healthy beneficial response to change. Furthermore, in both sectors the perspective on resistance to change was upsetting the balance between stability and change, and the uncertainty that comes with it. Therefore a psychological perspective of resistance to change is dominant in both sectors. However, conclusions can be drawn and propositions can be constructed when taking both of the sectors and regarding it as the view on resistance to change in practice.
P4: In practice there is a positive model of resistance to change.
P5: In practice resistance to change is viewed as a contribution effective change management and the change process
P7: In practice the dominant perspective on resistance to change is the psychological perspective.
Conclusion and Discussion
The goal of this study was to research how managers make sense of change recipients‘ reactions to be resistance to change. How the managers are influenced by the institutional environment in their sensemaking and what view they hold on resistance to change.
The results of this study contribute to the existing literature on organizational change by showing how managers make sense of change recipients‘ reactions to be resistance to change. Change recipients can react in a variety of ways towards change and thereby it could be argued that any change recipient reaction to change can be labeled resistance to change (e.g. Meston & Kings, 1996). But managers compare change recipients‘ reactions with their own beliefs and characteristics. This was also expected by Ford & Ford (2010). They state that it is a matter of perception and that manager‘s use resistance as a construct for labeling behavior they don‘t like or don‘t think should happen. Thus, whether change recipients‘ reactions are labeled as resistance to change depends on the managers‘ beliefs and his characteristics. As Maitlis and Christianson (2013) state that there is surprisingly little evidence on the intersection between the institutional environment and sensemaking. This study only showed that past experiences constraint sensemaking. This is recognized by Weber & Glynn (2006) who state that institutions are enacted, but confirm the duality that the accomplished sensemaking processes become part of the institution. Furthermore, Barley and Tolbert state:
„Institutions are historical accretions of past experiences and understandings that set conditions on actions‟ (1997: 99).
The lack of results for differentiating the profit and non-profit sector could be explained by the education the managers received. It could be that the managers in both sectors receive similar education.
This study comes with a number of limitations. The first limitation of this study is the external validity of the study due to the qualitative nature of this study. The results are not generalizable to other people, organizations, countries, and situations. Future research should therefore be a quantitative study to test the propositions of this study to validate the results. The second limitation is that this study only covers one side of the story which increased the chance of respondents‘ bias in this study. Only managers were included and change recipients themselves were left out as respondents. A research opportunity could be the combination of both sides of the story, including managers and change recipients.
The third limitation of this study is because of the instruments used in the data collection. Managers couldn‘t provide examples of social interactions between colleagues because it happened to long ago and they couldn‘t remember what was said and managers were unable to provide examples of how their education influences them in their sensemaking. Future research should use different data collecting instruments. For instance observation during change processes.
