Resistance to change: a bilateral perspective
The influences of change agents’ leader behavior and
recipients’ involvement on recipients’ resistance to change
By
Evelyn de Groot
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
ABSTRACT
Within the organizational change literature most of the studies are focusing on the change agent or the recipient, and how they influence changes, instead of giving attention to both stakeholders. A bilateral approach, which focuses on both perspectives, that of the change agent and the recipient, is not often used. The aim of this study is to get a better understanding of resistance to change from both perspectives, by researching the influence of leader behavior and involvement within the change process. The results show that from the perspective of the change agent, leader behavior set Shaping behavior and the two levels of involvement, “To inform” and “To involve” do not have an influence on resistance to change. Moreover, change agents perceive leader behavior sets Framing change and Creating capacity as positively related to recipients’ resistance to change. However, according to the recipient leader behavior sets Shaping behavior and Framing change and the two levels of involvement, “To inform” and “To involve” are negatively related to resistance to change. Furthermore, leader behavior set Creating capacity is not related to resistance to change from the perspective of the recipient. These findings suggest that resistance to change cannot be viewed from a unilateral perspective, since both perspectives perceive different outcomes. Considering this research as the first study which provides empirically findings on resistance to change form a bilateral approach, as well as testing leader behavior and involvement from both perspectives, limitations and recommendations are given in order to further develop this research area.
Keywords:
Resistance to change, Leader behavior, Involvement, Change agent, Recipient.TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 2
1. INTRODUCTION ... 4
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 8
2.1 DEFINING THE STAKEHOLDERS IN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE ... 8
2.2 RESISTANCE TO CHANGE ... 9
2.3 LEADER BEHAVIOR ... 11
2.4 INVOLVEMENT ... 16
3. METHOD ... 21
3.1 DATA COLLECTION AND PARTICIPANTS ... 21
3.2 SAMPLE ... 22
3.3 MEASUREMENT ... 23
3.3.1 Resistance to change ... 23
3.3.2 Leader behavior ... 24
3.3.3 Involvement ... 24
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS ... 25
4. RESULTS ... 32
4.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATIONS ... 32
4.2 CORRELATIONS FROM BOTH AGENTS AND RECIPIENTS’ PERSPECTIVE ... 36
4.3 PRELIMINARY INDEPENDENT T-‐TEST ... 38
4.4 HYPOTHESIS TESTING ... 40
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 45
5.1 DISCUSSION ... 45
5.2 THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTION ... 49
5.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS ... 50
5.4 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ... 50
5.5 CONCLUSION ... 51
REFERENCES ... 53
APPENDICES ... 60
APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS ... 60
1. INTRODUCTION
These days change has become more the rule instead of the exception; the ability of organizations to be accessible and open to change has become predominant (Bouckenooghe, Devos & Van den Broeck, 2009). Despite the growing need for change in organizations, it is widely recognized that up to 70 % of all change initiatives fail to succeed (Higgs & Rowland, 2003). According to Maurer (1997), the failure of change initiatives can be traced directly to recipients’ resistance to change. Recipients have many reasons to resist a change (Weis, 1998). Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) argue that recipients in general are not motivated to change unless there are imperative reasons to do so. Also Maurer (1998) states that it is natural to resist a change, since change brings uncertainty. According to Ford, Ford and McNamara (2002) resistance emerges, since it threatens the status quo, and it increases fear and anxiety of recipients due to possible consequences of the change. If recipients are not ready for the change, the change may be rejected and the recipient may start negative reactions such as absenteeism, sabotage, blaming or accusing and the restriction of output (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009).
According to Higgs and Rowland (2000) the cause of many change failures is leaders’ behavior. In times of organizational change, interpersonal relationships between the change agent and the recipients are of high value, because the nature of such relationships is a key in shaping recipients’ behaviors regarding organizational change. Considering the importance of the quality of the relationship between the change agent and the recipients it could also be determine that recipients’ resistance is the result of bad experiences with those who are leading the change (Ford et al., 2002). Nadler (1993) states that resistance occurs frequently during organizational change, since for the recipients it is unclear what the future state will be like. Since the goals and the purposes of the change become blurred, and expectations of the recipient get formed on the basis of information that is often incorrect, as a result rumors develop and recipients design their own fantasies about the change, and act on them.
&Williams, 2012; Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997; Nadler, 1993), and by letting them participate in the change (Boohene &Williams, 2012; Robbins & Judge, 2012).
Most studies regarding resistance to change adopt a unilateral approach, taking into account the perception of the people who are leading the change (i.e. change agent), instead of assessing the attitudes of all the stakeholders who are involved in the change process, also including the change recipients (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009; Ford et al., 2008; King & Anderson, 1995). Examples of studies based on this unilateral view are studies done by Battilana and Casciaro (2013), Schiavone (2012), Del Val and Fuentes (2003). Studies based on the perspective of the change agent concerning resistance to change appear to take the perspective that recipients bring up unreasonable obstacles or barriers intended to ruin the change, independent of the relationships and the interactions between the change agent and the recipient (Ford et al., 2002). Suggesting from this unilateral view, resistance to change is seen as a response, which arises spontaneously within the recipient as a reaction to change (Dent & Goldberg, 1999a). This presumption ignores that organizational change present both change agents and recipients possible problems, and that these are triggers for sensemaking, since problems as “resistance” are not givens, but are constructed by participants within the change (Weick, 1995). Therefore, a study that adopts a bilateral approach adds value through the reconstruction of “resistance to change” by expanding it to include the role of the change agents, and thus of the relationship between the change agent and the recipient, which shape and are shaped by their interactions (Ford et al. 2008). Leader behavior and involvement are both elements that could cover the role of the change agent within the “resistance story”, and in that way take into account the change agent-recipient relationship, since change agents’ behaviors and the degree in which they decide to involve recipients within the change, interacts with recipients’ behaviors, like resistance to change.
conducted a research on the impact of leaders’ behavior on the successful implementation of organizational change. Both studies take in to account a unilateral perspective, that of the change agent. Higgs and Rowland (2005) identified three broad sets of leadership behavior, which they categorize as: Shaping behavior (i.e. leader-centric), Framing change, and Creating capacity (i.e. group and systematic-focused behaviors). The results of their study show that leaders with high Shaping behaviors (i.e. leader-centric behaviors) tend to have a more negative impact on the success of the change. On the other hand Framing change and Creating capacity behaviors (i.e. more group and systematic-focused behaviors) appears to be positively related to the success of the change. Within the behavior sets Framing Change and Creating capacity, Higgs and Rowland (2011) developed four new behavior sets, which together are labeled as “Framcap” behavior. The results of their study show that leaders high in Framcap behavior (i.e. Framing change, and Creating capacity), and low in Shaping behavior, are most successful in change implementations. According to Higgs and Rowland (2011) more research on leader behavior sets is needed, based on a quantitative approach among a broad range of organizations.
Essentially, the purpose of this study is to contribute to previous literature, by providing a better understanding of resistance to change. The influence of leader behavior and involvement is investigated on resistance to change, in order to eventually, gain a better understanding of factors that can reduce recipients’ resistance to change. In order to provide knowledge about this concept, several research gaps are identified. First of all this study will examine a bilateral perspective on resistance to change, whereas both change agents and recipients’ perspective will be researched. Second, this study will research leader behavior and involvement on recipients’ resistance to change as factors of interaction between the change agent and the recipients. Third, this study adopts a quantitative approach in order to investigate leader behavior sets, Shaping behavior, Framing change, and Creating capacity by Higgs and Rowland (2005) among a broad range of organizations within several industries. This leads to the following research questions from the purpose of this study: How does change agents’ leader behavior and recipients’ involvement within the change process influence recipients’ resistance to change?
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section represents the literature concerning the conceptual model as explained in the introduction. First, the main stakeholders within this research are defined, the change agent and the recipient. Second, the dependent variable resistance to change is discussed. Followed by the independent variables: leader behavior and involvement.
2.1 Defining the stakeholders in organizational change
As mentioned in the introduction, this study adopts a bilateral perspective, and therefore focuses on the perspective of both the change agent and the recipient. Both perspectives on resistance to change are needed in order to prevent a unilateral view of resistance that is treated as an obtained truth. Ford et al. (2008) argue that this unilateral view is both theoretically and practically limited, far too simplistic, and possibly even mistaken.
With respect to the change agent, which is one of the stakeholders within this study. Cawsey, Deszca and Ingols (2012) define a change agent as “the one who provides leadership and direction in the change process”. According to them, change agents can engage in different roles like a change initiator, implementer or facilitator. Ford, Ford and D’amilio (2008) also adopt a bilateral perspective on resistance to change. They refer to change agents as “those who are responsible for identifying the need for change, creating a vision and specifying a desired outcome, and then making it happen”(Ford et al., 2008: 362).
Concerning the recipient, several scholars use the term recipient in their study. However, not all authors provide a definition of a recipient (e.g. Oreg, Bayazit, Vakola, Arciniega, & Armenikas, 2011; Bouckenooghe, 2009). Cawsey et al. (2012: 27) define a recipient as “the person who is affected by the change”. They state that the recipient within a change is regularly the person who has to change his or her behavior to assure the change is effective. Ford et al. (2008) in their study adopt the definition of a change recipient by Kanter, Stein and Jick (1992). Kanter et al. (1992) define a change recipient as “those who are responsible for implementing, adopting, or adapting to the change(s)”.
agent by Ford et al (2008) and the definition of a recipient as they adopt from Kanter et al. (1992), will be adopted within this study.
2.2 Resistance to change
Several researchers have described resistance to change within their studies. Lewin (1952) defines resistance as an inhibitory force moving in the direction of maintaining the status quo. Lawrence (1954) states that resistance may be expressed in the form of continued reduction in output, increases in the number of recipients voluntarily leaving the company and requests for transfer, chronic quarrels, sullen hostility, wildcat or slowdown strikes. Conner (1998) describes resistance as a natural reaction, which recipients have, to anything that upsets the status quo.
Recipients can have various reasons to resist a change: due to dislike of the change, discomfort with uncertainty, attachment to the established culture or identity, lack of conviction that the change is needed, and belief that the timing is wrong (Palmer et al, 2009). According to Coch and French (1948), at the individual level, resistance can be expressed in frustration, motivational problems, anxiety, feelings of failure, and resentment. Conner (1998) states that the most important cause of resistance is the loss of control by the recipient. Mullins (2007) describes selective perception, security in the past and fear of the unknown, inconvenience and loss of freedom, and economic implications as factors of individual and organizational resistance.
Within the literature of organizational change, resistance to change has been viewed from different perspectives. The traditional perspective, the predominant view on resistance to change is one-sided, in favor of the change agent. Within this view change agents are seen as the party who are doing the right things, while recipients according to them are ruining the change (Dent & Goldberg, 1999a; King & Anderson, 1995). On the other hand the non-traditional view, sees resistance as a two-sided story, in which resistance is caused by the interaction between the change agent and the recipient (Ford et al., 2008).
al., 2008). Since this view considers resistance as a label assigned by the change agent, resistance is portrayed as arising spontaneously, seen as a reaction towards change by recipients, independent of the relationship and the interactions between the change agent and the recipient (Ford et al., 2002; Dent & Goldberg, 1999a; King & Anderson, 1995). Moreover, since resistance is seen within this light, as a negative barrier, Boonstra (2004) states that resistance is illegal, defective and self-interested behavior that has to be defeated. Palmer et al. (2009) argue that one of the most general causes for the lack of success of organizational change is “resistance to change”. According to Foote (2001) resistance is “one of the nastiest, most debilitating workplace cancers”, and the biggest killer of progress and good intentions.
However, resistance to change displayed by recipients, does not only arrive from the feelings and behaviors of recipients. In line with the non-traditional view of resistance, Ford et al. (2008) broaden the resistance story by stating that resistance must be considered as a self-serving and a possible self-fulfilling label presented by change agents, in order to make sense of recipients’ reactions towards a change, and by proposing the way that change agents contribute to the occurrence of resistance by their own actions and inactions (Folger & Skarlicki, 1999; Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Concerning the occurrence of resistance, Ford et al. (2008) emphasize that change agents may contribute to resistance to change in several ways. Due to breaking agreements (psychological and implied contracts), both before, during, and afterwards the change, after that they fail to restore the following loss of trust (Reichers et al., 1997; Andersson, 1996). Moreover, change agents also contribute to resistance through communication breakdowns by failing to legitimize change, misrepresenting the chances of successful change and failing to call people to action (Ford et al., 2008).
new conservations, and debates (Ford, 1999); and, can create engagement within the change (Piderit, 2000), and commitment towards the change implementation (Amason, 1996).
The study by Oreg (2006) introduces and tests a model of resistance to change. The author describes resistance to change as a “tridimensional" attitude towards change, concerning affective, behavioral and cognitive components. The affective component describes how a person feels about the change. The cognitive component is how a person thinks about the change and the behavioral component is what a person does in the change. Resistance to change should be viewed as a multidimensional attitude toward change composed of cognitive, affective and behavioral components, since recipients’ thoughts, behaviors and feelings concerning change may not coincide, they come in to play at different stages (George & Jones, 2001; Piderit, 2000). According to Piderit (2000) a key benefit of using this multidimensional definition to describe recipients’ attitude towards organizational change, is that conceptualizing each dimension, as a separate continuum, allows for the ability of different reactions along the different dimensions.
This study will adopt the model of resistance to change by Oreg (2006). However, considering the bilateral approach of this study, only the behavioral component will be adopted. Oreg (2006) adopts the definition of resistance to change by Piderit (2000). Piderit (2000) defines resistance to change as “a tridimensional (negative) attitude towards change, which includes affective, behavioral, cognitive components”. In regard to the bilateral approach, this study will define resistance to change as: a one-dimensional (negative) attitude towards change, which includes a behavioral component.
2.3 Leader behavior
According to Burns (1978) leadership style can be described in terms of transformational and transactional leaders. Transformational leadership refers to leaders ability to move a follower through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation or individualized consideration rather than instantaneous self-interest (Bass, 1999). Transformational leaders are more able to keep recipients satisfied and committed to the organization, because of their personal traits (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Transactional leaders on the other hand try to motivate their followers through addressing their self-interest, through contingent reward, management by exception and laissez-faire (Bass, 1999). Robbins and Judge (2012) argue that the best leaders are both transactional and transformational. Avolio and Bass (1991) found that leaders who display more transformational characteristics, tend to be more effective as a leader, and are more satisfying to their followers comparing to leaders who are more transactional.
Higgs and Rowland (2005) identified three basic sets of leadership behavior within organizational change: Shaping behavior, Framing change and Creating capacity. Shaping behavior refers to a leadership style, whereby the communication and the actions of the leader are directly related to the change, they show large amounts of leader-centric behavior and make use of an individual focus. Framing change refers to a leadership style, which is aimed at designing and managing the journey for the change. Finally, Creating capacity refers to a leadership style whereby a leader creates individual and organizational capabilities and makes connections. Within the leadership behavior sets Framing change and Creating capacity, Higgs and Rowland (2011) identified four subcategories they named “Framcap": Attractor, Edge and Tension, Container and Transforming Space. Attractor refers to a leader, which pulls people towards the organizational goals, doing this by creating a magnetic energy force. Edge and Tension is a leader who tests and challenges the organization, strengthen the disturbance which is cost by the change, this by helping the people to see unhelpful patterns of culture behavior and while doing this, is keeping the change goals on track. Moreover, Container refers to a leader who is able to create a save environment, this by providing calm, being confident and affirming signal. Finally, Transforming space is a leader who creates change in the “here and now", in mind that the only thing that can be changed is the present moment.
the change. Kee and Setzer (2006) state that one of the drawbacks of a leader-centric approach in an organizational change context is resistance, since a change initiative is implemented top-down without considering recipients’ opinion about the change. On the other hand Higgs and Rowland (2005) found in their study that Framing change and Creating capacity behaviors (i.e. more group and systematic-focused behaviors) appears to be positively related to the success of the change in most of the contexts they investigated. These results tend to align with the findings in their more recent study, in which they found that “Framcap" behaviors (i.e. Framing change and Creating capacity) effectuate a successful change implementation (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). However, the most successful changes have the tendency to display leaders with high “Framcap" behaviors and tend to be relatively low on Shaping behavior. Ahmed, Zbib, Arokiasamy, Ramayah and Chiun (2006) found in their study that resistance to change is negatively related to a successful change implementation. These findings suggest that the most successful change implementation shows little or no resistance. This study will adopt the three broad sets of leader behavior, Shaping behavior, Framing change, and Creating capacity by Higgs and Rowland (2005).
Hypothesis 1a: The more change agents display Shaping behaviors, the more they perceive recipients’ resistance to change.
Hypothesis 1b: The more recipients perceive change agents who display Shaping behaviors, the more they acknowledge to show resistance to change.
Hypothesis 1c: There is a difference between change agents and recipients’ perception concerning the influence of change agents’ Shaping behaviors on recipients’ resistance to change.
Figure 2
The effect of Shaping behavior on resistance from a bilateral perspective
Agents’ Shaping behavior
Agents’ perspective
Agents’ Shaping behavior Recipients’ perspective Recipients’ resistance Agents’ perspective Recipients’ resistance Recipients’ perspective + + _
Hypothesis 2a: The more change agents display Framing change behaviors, the less they perceive recipients’ resistance to change.
Hypothesis 2b: The more recipients perceive change agents who display Framing change behaviors, the less they acknowledge to show resistance to change.
Hypothesis 2c: There is a difference between change agents and recipients’ perception concerning the influence of change agents’ Framing change behaviors on recipients’ resistance to change.
Figure 3
The effect of Framing change on resistance from a bilateral perspective Agents’ Framing change
Agents’ perspective
Agents’ Framing change Recipients’ perspective Recipients’ resistance Agents’ perspective Recipients’ resistance Recipients’ perspective _ _ _ _
Hypothesis 3a: The more change agents display Creating capacity behaviors, the more they perceive recipients’ resistance to change.
Hypothesis 3b: The more recipients perceive change agents who display Creating capacity behaviors, the less they acknowledge to show resistance to change.
Hypothesis 3c: There is a difference between change agents and recipients’ perception concerning the influence of change agents’ Creating capacity behaviors on recipients’ resistance to change.
Figure 4
The effect of Creating capacity on resistance from a bilateral perspective
2.4 Involvement
Within the literature there are many definitions of involvement and factors that can be linked to involvement, and thus a number of different ways of viewing it. According to Holden, 2001) this makes it problematic to come up with an encompassing definition of involvement. To involve recipients, is to gain their commitment in order to achieve organizational goals. Cotton (1996) argues that employee participation, involvement, and empowerment are actually the same processes. Robbins and Judge (2012) state that participation is a form of recipient involvement.
Since various authors argue that involvement and participation can be treated as the same or participation can be seen as a form of involvement, definitions are given of both concepts.
Agents’ Creating capacity Agents’ perspective
Agents’ Creating capacity Recipients’ perspective Recipients’ resistance Agents’ perspective Recipients’ resistance Recipients’ perspective _ _ _ _
Involvement has often been defined in terms of empowering recipients in order to take responsibility for their roles and function within the organization (Holden, 2001). Burnes (2009) defines participation as the process of involving recipients into decision-making and change activities within the organization. Robbins and Judge (2012) argue that participation refers to a process in which recipients share a significant degree of decision-making power with their direct leader. According to Riordan, Van den Berg and Richardson (2005), participative decision-making refers to the perception among recipients that they have control over or a say in decisions that affect their work. Glew, O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin and Van Fleet (1995) argue that participation refers to influence sharing and joint decision-making.
Several scholars have developed categories or levels of involvement. Marchington, Goodman, Wilkinson and Ackers (1992) divide involvement into four categories: downward communications, upward problem-solving forms, financial participation and representative participation. Downward communications (top down) implies managers who communicate the organizational change towards the recipients and keep them informed about the change. According to Reichers et al. (1997) recipients need to be fully informed and educated concerning the need for the change, the progress and problems associated with the change processes and the results of the change. Upward problem-solving forms (two way communication) refer to forms that are designed in order to tap into employee’s knowledge and opinion concerning the change. Furthermore, financial participation implies the linking of the performance of the organization to that of the employee in order to achieve employee commitment regarding the change. Finally, representative participation refers to employees who are involved through representatives on the basis of union membership.
This study will focus on different levels of involvement, and therefore the model by The International Association for Public Participation (2007) is in line with this research and will be adopted partly. This research will only take into account two levels of the model of participation: To inform, and To involve. Since these levels of involvement tend to align with the items used within this study by Bouckenooghe et al. (2009). The definition of the first level of participation, To inform by The International Association for Public Participation (2007) will be adopted within this research. To inform is defined as “providing the recipient with balanced and objective information about the change”. However, To involve, within this study will be defined as: engaging recipients in the decision-making process.
With respect to the level “To inform”, Reichers et al. (1997) state that managing resistance involves providing timely, credible and appropriate information to recipients. Oreg (2006) found in his research that there is a negative relation between recipients who receive information about the organizational change and their resistance to change. Concerning the level “To involve”, McNabb and Sepic (1995) found in their study, that a major cause of disappointing results with organizational change was a lack of participation. Robbins and Judge (2012) state that it is difficult for a recipient to resist a change in which one has participated. Participation in a change process can reduce resistance, obtain commitment and increases the quality of the change decision. According to Amiot, Terry, Jimmieson and Callan (2006) recipients who experienced high levels of participation, generally report higher readiness and acceptance towards the change, value change as less stressful and displayed overall support for the change. These findings suggest that recipients will display less resistance to change, when they experience high levels of participation. Boohene and Williams (2012) found in their study that recipients’ involvement in decision-making reduces resistance to change. Also Coch and French (1948) conclude from their study that employees that were allowed to participate in the design and development of the changes display a lower degree of resistance than those that did not. According to Giangreco and Peccei (2005) involvement in the change process reduces resistance to change due to the fact that recipients generate a more positive attitude towards the change.
relation to resistance to change, that of the recipient, two hypotheses are formulated according to their findings based on a bilateral approach, followed by a third alternative hypothesis. This leads to the following hypotheses and an overview of the expected outcomes of the hypotheses (Figure 5 & 6):
Hypothesis 4a: The more change agents inform recipients about the change, the less they perceive recipients’ resistance to change.
Hypothesis 4b: The more recipients perceive change agents who inform them about the change, the less they acknowledge to show resistance to change.
Hypothesis 4c: There is a difference between change agents and recipients’ perception concerning the influence of To inform on recipients’ resistance to change.
Figure 5
Hypothesis 5a: The more change agents involve recipients within the change, the less they perceive recipients’ resistance to change.
Hypothesis 5b: The more recipients perceive change agents who involve them within the change, the less they acknowledge to show resistance to change.
Hypothesis 5c: There is a difference between change agents and recipients’ perception concerning the influence of To involve on recipients’ resistance to change.
Figure 6
The effect of To involve on resistance from a bilateral perspective
3. METHOD
In this section at first, the procedure and the criteria in order to collect the data are described. Followed by a description of the sample. Next, the measurements of the variables will be discussed. Finally, the methods are described, which are used to analyze the data.
3.1 Data collection and participants
As mentioned in the introduction, this study has adopted a bilateral perspective, which implies that both change agents and recipients’ perspectives have been taken into account. Within this line so called “change stories” were formed. A change story can be described as a story based on the interaction between a change agent and two or more recipients during a change process within an organization.
Respondents were selected and consulted based on the criteria that the company or department recently experienced a change or were still active within the change process. Despite, the change initiative did not ended or was implemented any longer then two years ago, in order to ensure the reliability of the given answers within the questionnaire. The criteria regarding the time frame was made, because at this given time the participants could still fairly easily recall the change within their minds. Moreover, no criteria concerning the topic of the change, type of organization or industry, and organizational level were made. Since this study focuses on organizational change in general, all kind of organizational changes were allowed to participate within this study, such as mergers and acquisitions, certifications, reorganizations, process-based changes, changes in work approach. However, a criterion that needed to be complied was that the “change stories” needed to consist of one change agent and 2-5 recipients. The criterion of at least two recipients was used in order to ensure the ability to allow for comparisons. Another criterion regarding the change story was, that the change agent needed to be the initiator or manager of the change in relation to the recipients. The criterion that the recipients had to met, in order to participate within this study, was that they needed to be affected by the change.
research by email. If permission was given the principal or change agent was asked to form groups of one direct leader (change agent) and 2-5 recipients as described above, and to send the email addresses of both the change agent(s) and recipients, and to communicate the change subject. The principal of the company or the change agent were also asked to inform the participants about their participation within this study.
Concerning the bilateral approach of this study, two questionnaires were developed, both for the change agents and the recipients. Web-based surveys were used in order to enhance the data collecting process and to avoid inefficient ways of working. After that, an email was send to all participants, which contained a link of the questionnaire, explanation of the procedure, and information about their role (change agent or recipient), the type of change, the name of the change agent (recipients only), and their personal questionnaire code. In this way it was most covered by guarantee that the change agent and recipients, who form a group, both answered the questionnaires on the basis of the same change, and in mind with the correct change leader (recipient version). By giving them a personal code, the results of both the change agent and recipients could easily be linked. A one-week period was given to fill in the questionnaire for both the change agents and the recipients. If they did not respond, a reminder was send by email at day nine. In order to increase the respond rate of this research, this procedure was repeated two times.
3.2 Sample
With respect to the recipients, after removing respondents with missing values, the dataset consisted of 117 respondents. Out of the 117 recipients, 63.2% was male, and 36.8 % was female. The age of the recipients ranked from 19 up to 64 years (M = 39.15, SD = 12.91). Regarding their education, 48.7 % completed Polytechnic and/or University education, 42.7 % completed Secondary and /or intermediate vocational education, and 7.7% completed Primary education or “other” as highest level of education. The numbers of years the recipients were working within their function ranked from 0 until 27 years (M = 6.90, SD = 6.00).
The size of the company where the respondents worked ranked from 8 up to 9000 employees (M = 1187.00, SD = 2378.32).
3.3 Measurement
An overview of the items which were used in order to measure the effect of leader behavior and involvement on resistance to change from both perspectives are given in Appendix A. Below the scales and items of the three variables are described.
3.3.1 Resistance to change
“strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). An overview of the items can be found in Appendix A. Resistance to change was measured, from the perspective of the change agent, according to their opinion on the behaviors of the recipients towards the change. From the perspective of the recipient, resistance to change was obvious measured on the basis of their opinion about their own behavior.
3.3.2 Leader behavior
Leader behavior was measured from both the perspective of the change agent and of the recipient, by using items which are based upon the leader behavior sets developed by Higgs and Rowland (2005, 2011). In this study a total of 40 items (based on “Framcap” behavior) were used to measure leaders Shaping behavior, Framing change, and Creating capacity. An overview of the items can be found in Appendix A. Both questionnaires used a 7-point scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (7). Leader behavior was measured from the perspective of the change agent, on its own leader behavior. Regarding the perspective of the recipient, leader behavior was measured by their opinion about the behaviors of the change agent.
3.3.3 Involvement
3.4 Data analysis
The analysis of the data from both change agents and recipients’ perspective included various steps. In order to test the validity and the reliability of the variables, at first a Factor analysis (Hair, Tatham & Anderson, 1998) and a Reliability analysis was performed based on the approach by Brace, Kemp and Snelgar (2006). Concerning the Factor analysis, Rotated Varimax analyses were conducted, with eigenvalues and a fixed number of factors to extract on the variables: resistance to change, leader behavior, and involvement.
With respect to the variable resistance, all three items loaded on one factor with the use of Varimax rotation and eigenvalues to extract, above the threshold of .45 as stated by Hair et al. (1998). Therefore, none of the items of resistance were removed from this study. The results of the Factor analysis can be found below in Table 1.
Table 1
Factor analysis resistance from both agents and recipients’ perspective
Item Factor 1 RES_1 RES_2 RES_3 .812 .925 .847
Table 2
Factor analysis leader behavior from both agents and recipients’ perspective
Item Factor 1 2 3 SB_2 SB_3 SB_4 SB_5 SB_6 SB_7 SB_8 ET_2 ET_4 ET_5 ET_6 ET_7 ET_8 ET_9 Cont_3 Cont_5 Cont_6 Cont_7 Cont_8 Crea_3 Crea_4 Crea_5 Crea_6 Crea_7 .269 .331 .082 .228 .382 .290 .403 .596 .541 .580 .646 .595 .662 .767 .199 .629 .490 .675 .695 .269 .413 .359 .210 .055 .222 .263 .455 .432 .247 .240 .201 .336 .161 .461 .450 .420 .395 .064 .665 .160 .590 .074 .230 .746 .651 .632 .763 .823 .671 .671 .699 .704 .706 .754 .667 .310 .314 .228 .055 .144 .159 .284 .298 .386 .236 .266 .354 .278 .226 .270 .316 .270
another Factor analysis was conducted, using Varimax rotation, and two fixed number of factors. Because the items did not loaded in a useful pattern, several items were removed. With respect to the level To inform, the items ICP_1 and ICP_4 were removed from this study, since they loaded on the items of To involve. Moreover, item PM_4 was removed form this study after it loaded on “To inform items”. At last, another Factor analysis was conducted with use of Varimax rotation and eigenvalues to extract, unfortunately the items did not loaded in the same pattern over two factors, but loaded again on one factor. Nevertheless it was chosen to still take into account the two levels of involvement within this study. Since it can be of value to make a distinction between “To inform” and “To involve” as levels of involvement, in order to research in what way they influence recipients’ resistance to change. The results of the Factor analysis can be found below in Table 3.
Table 3
Factor analysis involvement from both agents and recipients’ perspective
Item Factor 1 2 ICP_2 ICP_3 ICP_5 ICP_6 PM_1 PM_2 PM_3 .497 .278 .471 .704 .689 .843 .789 .758 .891 .751 .504 .540 .278 .371
involvement items of both constructs still loaded on one factor, and therefore could not be forced to load on two different factors. Therefore, it was chosen to take into account the results of the analysis based on eigenvalues to extract, which loaded on five factors. The results of the Factor analysis can be found below in Table 4. The results show that the constructs resistance, Shaping behavior, Framing Change and Creating capacity all loaded in a useful pattern on different factors. However, item Cont_5, which belongs to leader behavior set Framing change, loaded on the same factor as the items of the two constructs of involvement. Since the residual of the items, still loaded in a useful pattern in comparison to the Factor analysis per variable (Table 1 and 2), and because the results of the Factor analysis with regard to the variable involvement (Table 3) showed to be forced into two factors with use of two fixed numbers to extract, it was chosen to develop the constructs for this study based on the individual Factor analyses and not to remove item Cont_5 from this study.
Table 4
Factor analysis of all six constructs from both agents and recipients’ perspective
Item Factor 1 2 3 4 5 ET_6 .134 .385 .681 .078 .048 ET_7 .047 .363 .666 .219 -.034 ET_8 .125 .325 .705 .200 .065 ET_9 .566 .007 .618 .107 -.033 Cont_3 .250 .633 .218 .216 .016 Cont_5 .591 .113 .481 .176 .042 Cont_6 .433 .537 .482 .107 .056 Cont_7 .143 .003 .681 .325 .110 Cont_8 .453 .170 .614 .232 .011 Crea_3 .190 .719 .314 .223 -.020 Crea_4 .248 .633 .424 .133 -.004 Crea_5 .242 .592 .365 .213 .084 Crea_6 .301 .740 .194 .237 .082 Crea_7 .137 .807 .096 .262 .061 ICP_2 .728 .332 .210 .263 -.078 ICP_3 .745 .147 .250 .283 -.161 ICP_5 .611 .395 .183 .362 -.021 ICP_6 .562 .539 .176 .301 -.101 PM_1 .752 .311 .134 .301 .074 PM_2 .575 .461 .144 .239 -.005 PM_3 .635 .509 .114 .201 -.050
Table 5
Factor & Reliability analyses from both change agents and recipients’ perspective Construct Chronbach’s Alphas Factor Item
Resistance Shaping behavior Framing change Creating capacity To inform To involve .821 .912 .908 .913 .892 .891 1 3 1 2 2 1 RES_1-3 SB_2-8 ET_2,4-9; Cont_5,7,8 Cont_3,6; Crea_3-7 ICP_2,3,5 ICP_6, PM_1-3
4. RESULTS
4.1 Descriptive statistics and correlations
Concerning the perspective of the recipient, the results of the descriptive statistics and correlations are shown below in Table 7. The results show that the means from the perspective of the recipient have near equal means (M = 4.64 - 4.90). Furthermore, resistance scored the lowest mean (M = 2.60) and the highest standard deviation (SD = 1.43) compared to the other constructs. As can be seen from the results also several significant relationships were found. Concerning the perspective of the recipient “gender” was found to positively correlate with “To inform”. Next, “age” and “relative work experience” were found positively related to “Creating capacity”.
4.2 Correlations from both agents and recipients’ perspective
4.3 Preliminary independent t-test
In order to gain insight in the means from both change agents and recipients’ perspective, and do determine whether they are significantly different from another, an independent t-test was conducted. Table 9 below shows the results of the independent t-test on the six constructs of this study. Concerning the dependent variable resistance, there was a significant difference in the scores between the change agents (M = 3.71, SD = 1.57) and the recipients (M = 2.60, SD = 1.43) conditions; t(161) = 4.34, p = .000. With respect to leader behavior, Shaping behavior, appeared to show significance in difference of scores between the change agents (M = 5.48, SD = .96) and the recipients (M = 4.84, SD = 1.18) conditions; t(101) = 3.61, p = .000. Moreover, there was also found a significant difference in scores concerning “Framing change” between the change agents (M = 5.37, SD = .91) and the recipients (M = 4.90, SD = 1.00) conditions; t(161) = 2.71, p = .007. The scores of the change agents (M = 5.06, SD = 1.14) and the recipients (M = 4.49, SD = 1.12) with respect to Creating capacity shows to be significant in difference (t(161) = 2.88, p = .004). Furthermore, concerning involvement level “To inform”, there was a significant difference in scores between the change agent (M = 5.51, SD = .97) and the recipient (M = 4.81, SD = 1.44) conditions; t(122) = 3.57, p = .001. At last, there was also found a significant difference in scores concerning “To involve” between the change agent (M = 5.48, SD = 1.04) and the recipient (M = 4.64, SD = 1.32) conditions; t(103) = 4.24, p = .000.
Table 9
Independent t-test from both change agents and recipients’ perspective
4.4 Hypothesis testing
First, the relationships between leader behavior set Shaping behavior and resistance to change, from both perspectives were tested. Below, the results can be found in Table 10. Using the enter method, concerning the perspective of the change agent, the results show that neither the complete model (F (4,41) = .355, p > .05), nor any of the other relationships were significant. With regard to the perspective of the recipient, the model appears to be significant (F (4,112) = 3.763, p < .01). The model explains 8.7 % of the variance in resistance (Adjusted R2 = .087). Next to this, a negative relationship was found between Shaping behavior and resistance (B = -.317, p < .01). Also a positive relationship was found between “work experience within the current job” and resistance (B = .049, p < .05).
Table 10
Regression analysis Shaping behavior on resistance from both change agents and recipients’ perspective
Independent variables Agents’ perspective Coefficients Recipients’ perspective Coefficients ß P ß P Constant Age
Regarding the relationships between leader behavior set Framing change and resistance to change, the results below in Table 11 show that with use of the enter method, the complete model (F (4,41) = 1.472, p > .05) was found not to be significant from the perspective of the change agent. However, a positive relationship was found between Framing change and resistance (B = .579, p < .05). With respect to the recipient, the complete model appears to be significant (F (4,112) = 2.545, p < .01). The model explains 5.1 % of the variance in resistance (Adjusted R2 = .051). Also a negative relationship was found between Framing change and resistance (B = -.257, p = .05) from the perspective of the recipient. Work experience within the current job appears to be positively related to resistance (B = .051, p < .05)
Table 11
Regression analysis Framing change on resistance from both change agents and recipients’ perspective
Independent variables Agents’ perspective Coefficients Recipients’ perspective Coefficients ß P ß P Constant Age
With respect to the relationships between leader behavior set Creating capacity and resistance to change, the results below in Table 12 show that with use of the enter method the complete model (F (4,41) = 1.347, p > .05) was not found to be significant from the perspective of the change agent. However, a positive relationship was found between Creating capacity and resistance (B = .424, p < .05). With regard to the perspective of the recipient, the model appears to be significant (F (4,112) = 2.295, p < .01). The model explains 4.3 % of the variance in resistance (Adjusted R2 = .043). Moreover, a marginal effect was found between Creating capacity and resistance form the perspective of the recipient (B = -.205, p < .10) Furthermore, a positive relationship was found between “work experience within the current job” and resistance (B = .50, p < .05).
Table 12
Regression analysis Creating capacity on resistance from both change agents and recipients’ perspective
Independent variables Agents’ perspective Coefficients Recipients’ perspective Coefficients ß P ß P Constant Age
Next, the relationships between the level of involvement, To inform and resistance were estimated from both the perspective of the change agent and the recipient. The results can be found in Table 13 below. Concerning the perspective of the change agent, with use of the enter method the complete model appeared not to be significant (F (4,41) = .269, p > .05). Furthermore, no any other relationships were significant. However, the results from the perspective of the recipient show that the complete model is significant (F (2,114) = 3.404, p < .01), The model explains 7.7 % of the variance in resistance (Adjusted R2 = .077). Besides, a negative relationship was found between “To inform” and resistance (B = -.238, p < .01). Work experience within the current job appeared to be positively related to resistance (B = .048, p < .05).
Table 13
Regression analysis To inform on resistance from both change agents and recipients’ perspective
Independent variables Agents’ perspective Coefficients Recipients’ perspective Coefficients ß P ß P Constant Age
Last, concerning to the relationships between “To involve” and resistance to change, the results below in Table 14 show that with use of the enter method, neither the complete model (F (4,41) = .356 p > .05) nor any other specific relationships were found to be significant from the perspective of the change agent. With regard to the perspective of the recipient, the model appears to be significant (F (4,112) = 3.351, p < .01). To model explains 7.5 % of the variance in resistance (Adjusted R2 = .085). Besides, a negative relationship was found between “To involve” and resistance (B = -.256, p < .05). Moreover, “work experience within the current job” appeared to be positively related to resistance (B = .048, p < .05).
Table 14
Regression analysis To involve on resistance from both change agents and recipients’ perspective
Independent variables Agents’ perspective Recipients’ perspective Coefficients Coefficient
ß P ß P Constant
Age
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Discussion
The overall findings of this study provide empirical support for some of the theories as described within the theoretical framework section, and provide some interesting results. First, several of the constructs within this study, Shaping behavior, To inform, and To involve from the perspective of the change agent, appeared not to correlate with resistance to change. However, a positive relationship was found between leader behavior set Framing change and resistance, and between Creating capacity and resistance form the perspective of the change agent. The results reject hypothesis 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a, and 5a.
These findings concerning leader behavior set Shaping behavior and the two levels of involvement could be interpreted as that change agents belief that they do not have an influence on negative behaviors from recipients, when they resist a change. Not by their own Shaping behaviors as a leader, nor by informing recipients about the change, and involving them within the change. They could also state that resistance is something that occurs within the recipient, due to their personality, independently of the influences of leader’s Shaping behaviors and involvement within the change. These interpretations can be explained by Ford et al. (2008) who argue within their theory that resistance could be an interpretation, which is assigned by change agents to the behaviors of recipients. This is in line with the predominant one-sided view of resistance, assuming that change agents are doing the right thing within the change, while recipients are throwing spanners in the works in order to prevent the change from succeeding (Dent & Goldberg, 1999a; King & Anderson, 1995). Change agents do not seem to acknowledge the likelihood that they contribute, through their own actions and inactions, to the occurrence of resistance behaviors assigned to the recipient (Kanter et al., 1992). Instead, they view resistance as an undesirable response which arises spontaneously within the recipient, as a reaction to change, independent of the relationship between the change agent and the recipient and their interactions (Ford et al., 2002).
and on the other hand perceive Framing change and Creating capacity as positively related. These results could be explained by the assumption that change agents believe that when they display the more facilitating and enabling behaviors (i.e. Framing change and Creating capacity), they are “doing the right thing”, since they demonstrate the more “social” leader behaviors in comparison to leader-centric behaviors (i.e. Shaping behaviors), while recipients according to them react thereon by showing more resistance to change (Dent & Goldberg, 199a). Thus in other words, change agents portray themselves as victims of the dysfunctional behaviors of recipients within the change (Ford et al. 2008). Also the phenomenon of Self-fulfilling prophecy could explain why change agents perceive Framing change and Creating capacity as positively related to resistance to change, since this phenomenon can have a significant impact on change agents’ sensemaking. Kanter et al. (1992) argue with regard to self-fulfilling prophecies that if change agents expect resistance to change by recipients within a change they are likely to find it.
With respect to the perspective of the recipient, Shaping behavior and Framing change appeared to correlate negatively with resistance to change. Therefore, hypothesis 1b is rejected and hypothesis 2b is accepted within this study. Moreover, leader behavior set Creating capacity, was found not to be significant in relation to resistance. For this reason hypothesis 3b is rejected.
These findings could be explained by the role of context within organizational change, since context can impact what types of leaders’ behavior and recipients’ behavior are considered as acceptable and unacceptable, effective and ineffective (Avolio, 2007). Also Dulewicz and Higgs (2004) state that the relevance of leaders’ behavior is dependent on the context in which a certain type of behavior by a change agent is exercised. Leaders’ behavior needs to be consistent with the context of the change, and this “fit” is a determinant for both change agents’ performance and recipients’ commitment. Bareil et al. (2007) found within their study that 77% of the recipients their reaction towards change is context specific (related to the change), while 23% is not position determined (related to the individual). The results of this study can be explained by a variety of contextual factors, since it is acknowledged within the change literature, that there is a diversity of change contexts (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Higgs and Rowland (2005) identified the following key contextual variables: scope of change, magnitude of change, history of change, timescale of change, source of change (i.e. internal or external), complexity of change, and individual or team led change. The authors found that within most of the contexts, Shaping behavior did not appeared to be related to a successful change implementation (Higgs & Rowland, 2005), and therefore mostly could not to be related to resistance to change (Ahmed et al. 2006). However, Higgs and Rowland (2005) did found that Shaping behaviors are more likely to be sustained in low-scope, low-magnitude, and internally-driven change. Moreover, Framing change behaviors appear to be more likely to be sustained in short, high-scope, high-magnitude, and externally driven short time scale changes. Therefore, it could be suggested that the contexts of the “change stories” gathered within this study are of short time scale, both internally and externally driven, small and big in scope, and small and big in magnitude. Since Creating capacity did not appeared to be significant in relation to resistance from the perspective of the recipient, it could be stated that the nature of the “change stories” within this study are not likely to be changes who are long-term, and have taken place in organizations with a long history of change (Higgs & Rowland, 2005).
Judge (2012) state that the ability to simply resist a change is related to recipients’ personality, since some recipients do have more negative attitudes towards change compared to others. According to Oreg (2006) human beings who are high on dispositional (related to the individual) resistance to change, are less likely to voluntarily accept changes within their lives. In situations where they have to deal with a change they are more likely to experience negative emotional reactions, such as anxiety, anger, and fear. This could suggest that recipients believe that they resist a change based on their own personality independently of the influence of leaders’ Creating capacity behaviors, since these behaviors demonstrate commitment, are vulnerable and open, are focused on understanding, and creates time and space in order to change. Moreover, despite the individual level of resistance, also organizational culture could explain these results, considering that organizations can hold strong cultures, which comprise beliefs, values, and, artifacts (Palmer et al. 2009). In other words determine “the way we do things around here” (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). This could mean that recipients’ resistance to change can be significantly influenced by the degree of adhesion to the single culture, independent of the influence of leaders’ Creating capacity behaviors. Since recipients interpret change initiatives through the set of beliefs they hold about the organizations identity. Identity beliefs are critical to consider within organizational change, because individuals of a culture belief that the identity of the organization is central, distinctive and permanent. These beliefs are particularly resistant to change, since they are embedded within the recipients (Reger, Mullane, Gustafson & DeMarie, 1994).
Furthermore, from the perspective of the recipient, “To inform” and “To involve” were found to negatively correlate with resistance to change. This means the more recipients perceive change agents who inform them about the change and involve them within the change process, the less they acknowledge to show resistance to change. These findings support hypothesis 4b, and 5b, and therefore are in line with the empirical findings by Boohene and Williams (2012), Amiot et al. (2006), Oreg (2006), Giangreco and Peccei (2005), Reichers et al. (1997), McNabb and Sepic (1995), and Coch and French (1948).
positively related to resistance. However, recipients perceive Shaping behavior, Framing change, To inform and To involve as negatively related to resistance, but recognize Creating capacity as insignificant in relation to resistance. Therefore, hypothesis 1c, 2c, 3c, 4c and 5c are accepted within this study. The differences in perception can be explained by the two-sided theory on resistance to change by Ford et al. (2008). With respect to the constructs Shaping behavior, To inform, and To Involve change agents assume that they do not contribute to the occurrence of recipients’ resistance to change by their own behaviors. Rather they believe that resistance arises spontaneously within the recipient, as a reaction towards change, independent of the interactions and the relationship between the change agent and the recipients (Ford et al., 2002). On the other hand change agents believe with respect to the leader behavior sets Framing change and Creating capacity that they are “doing the right things” (Dent & Goldberg, 1999a) by displaying behaviors that establish an emotional connection with recipients, challenge them to deliver change, create a clear framework, and enables recipients to think and act differently (Higgs and Rowland, 2011), while recipients according to them are ruining the change by displaying more resistance to change (Dent & Goldberg, 1999a). However, recipients do acknowledge that the behaviors of change agents are negatively related to resistance to change, and therefore believe that change agents do have an influence on resistance to change by their Shaping and Framing change behaviors and their behaviors concerning the two levels of involvement, “To inform”, and “To involve”.
5.2 Theoretical contribution
involvement (e.g. Williams, 2012; Robbins and Judge, 2012; Amiot et al. 2006; Giangreco and Peccei, 2005; McNabb & Sepic, 1995; Coch and French, 1948).
5.3 Practical implications
Practical value of this study can be found in the fact that change agents and recipients differ in perception concerning the influence of leader behavior and involvement, on resistance to change. As stated earlier, change agents believe that there is no relationship between leader behavior set Shaping behavior and recipients’ resistance to change, and between the two levels of involvement, To inform and To involve, and resistance to change. Moreover, they perceive Framing change and Creating capacity as positively related to resistance. Recipients on the other hand perceive change agents’ Shaping behavior and Framing capacity and the two levels of involvement as negatively related to resistance to change. Furthermore, they believe that there is no significant relationship between Creating capacity and resistance. Since within an organizational change context it is essential that the change will be successfully implemented or achieved, and therefore shows no or little resistance to change by recipients (Ahmed et al., 2006), it is important that change agents are aware of the differences in perception. Because recipients are the ones who may resist a change, and believe that change agents’ Shaping behavior, Framing change and the two levels of involvement, To inform and To involve, will lead to less resistance to change. Change agents should be aware of their influences as a leader and should view resistance as a product of their own sensemaking and behaviors, and act thereon.
5.4 Limitations and recommendations for further research
Despite the findings of this study and the conclusion that has been drawn, this study is limited to a certain degree. First, regarding the gathering of the “change stories”. Change agents were asked to select 2-5 recipients as respondents in order to form “change stories”. This could mean that the change agent could have selected recipients who were more in line with his or her way of perceiving resistance to change, or that the change agent could have influenced recipients’ opinion, since the researcher did not randomly select the recipients.
strategy to fill in the actual survey. A way to overcome this bias could be by providing all the respondents a personal link of the survey, which could only be filled in once.
Third, the data for this study was gathered from more than 30 different organizations, and therefore consists of a diversity of different “change stories” in different contexts. However, this study fails to investigate different contextual “change stories” in order to explore the impact and effectiveness of leader behavior sets among contextual differences. Further research could investigate leader behavior among different contexts, in order to make statements about the relation between leader behavior, context, and resistance to change.
Fourth, his study is limited to a single time frame. Further research could investigate resistance to change in different time settings during the process of the change. Because the meaning attached to resistance to change, and the influence of leader behavior, and involvement thereon may vary across time.
Finally, this study is limited to resistance to change as a change outcome. Further research could also investigate the influence of leader behavior and involvement on “readiness behavior” as a second dependent variable, in order to make statements about possible differences in outcomes. Since it could be suggested that change agents believe that Shaping behavior and involvement are not related to recipients’ resistance to change, because resistance is associated with negative behaviors by recipients, and therefore change agents do not perceive their behaviors as related to recipients’ resistance to change. On the other hand change agents could perceive Shaping behavior and involvement as related to “readiness behavior”, since “readiness behavior” involves positive behaviors from recipients towards a change, and therefore change agents could perceive their behaviors as related to readiness behavior.
5.5 Conclusion
