The Representation of Resistance to Change and Readiness for Change

(1)

The Representation

of

Resistance to Change and Readiness for Change

An Exploratory Review of Management Textbooks

MSc Thesis

by

Esther Geke Drewes Vondellaan 166 9721 LJ Groningen e.g.drewes@student.rug.nl student number: s1725742

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Business Administration – Change Management

(2)

(3)

Abstract

Organizational change is frequent and change agents and managers are considered a determinant factor in the success or failure of change initiatives. Nonetheless, recipients’ resistance often gets the blame in case of failure. The influence of management textbooks on change agents’ and managers’ knowledge, and therefore on the way they manage change initiatives and recipients, is substantial and hence form this study’s research subject. In this literature review we found that scholars’ requests for a move towards a more positive, multilevel, and two-sided view of resistance to change are partially complied with and are increasingly being reflected in management textbooks.

Keywords: resistance to change, readiness for change, management textbooks, knowledge transfer

(4)

(5)

1. Introduction

Problem Statement

The way organizational change develops and advances over time may differ in every organization, and in every individual change situation, and the role of change agents or managers in planning and implementing change process is key (Bouckenooghe, 2010: 507) and can therefore be a determinant factor in change initiatives’ success or failure. The way future change agents and managers handle or manage change initiatives is likely to be influenced by management textbooks, which are used during their education. The influence of these textbooks cannot be minimized (Becher, 1964), since future change agents and managers (partially) derive their knowledge from these textbooks. We are interested in the content of these textbooks, and whether they resemble the current state of affairs found in the academic literary field.

Since the first half of the twentieth century, researchers in the field of organizational behaviour and change management have been fascinated by management questions such as “why do people resist change?” and “what can be done to overcome this resistance?” A possible explanation for the existence of such questions in contemporary organizational behaviour and change management literature is, for example, the existence of the view that employees are at the centre of organizational change (Choi, 2011: 480). Furthermore, researchers increasingly argue that “many change efforts fail because change leaders often underestimate the central role individuals play in the change process” (Choi, 2011: 479), and additionally, failure of change initiatives is often attributed to recipients’ resistance to change (Ford & Ford, 2010; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Reisner, 2002; Erwin & Garman, 2010).

(8)

521). In Dent & Goldberg’s review of management textbooks, they “continue to encounter a mental model that […] is almost universally accepted in organizational life – people resist change” (1999: 25) and they conclude that “the conventional wisdom concerning resistance to change has not been significantly altered by academic work in the past 30 years” (Dent & Goldberg, 1999: 39), and Bouckenooghe even states that research has made little advancement in the last 50 years (2010: 521). Nearly a decade later, Ford & Ford describe the change management literature field as having “a one-sided view of resistance that is treated as received truth” (2008: 363), which “favors change agents by proposing that resistance is an irrational and dysfunctional reaction located ‘over there’ in change recipients” (2008: 362).

On the other hand, there are indications that academics’ negative thoughts on resistance to change are changing towards more moderate or even positive thoughts, even seeing recipients’ resistance to change as a resource for change (Ford & Ford: 2008). This is enforced by Ford & Ford, who state, “by assuming that resistance is necessarily bad, change agents have missed its potential contributions of increasing the likelihood of successful implementation, helping build awareness and momentum for change, and eliminating unnecessary, impractical, or counterproductive elements in the design or conduct of the change process” (2008: 363). Piderit follows the same line of thought, suggesting that “in studies of resistance to change, researchers have largely overlooked the potentially positive intentions that may motivate negative responses to change” (2000: 783), and that it is possible that unfavorable responses to change are motivated by good intentions (2000: 784). A final indication of the changing discussion on resistance to change is the fact that apart from resistance to change being a possible explanation for the failures of change initiatives, readiness for change seems to be mentioned more frequently in change management literature, and is even linked to change success (Stevens, 2013; Vakola, 2013).

Research Purpose

(9)

stock of the literary field until then. In order to answer the research question, we will first explore the academic literary field, with regard to the concepts resistance to change and readiness for change, both ‘then’ and now. For each individual textbook, we will then determine the character of the text, and the amount of attention paid to both core concepts. Thenceforth, we will investigate several aspects of the textbooks’ content, namely the nature of the discussion on both concepts, level of analysis, tridimensional level, conceptual identity, perspective, antecedents, change situation, and the presence of influential authors and theories. Additionally, a comparison will be made between this study’s findings, and the findings of a comparable study of popular management books (Baart, 2014).

Research Significance and Relevance

Stambaugh & Trank describe textbooks as “a vehicle through which research is transferred to future practitioners” (2010: 663) and additionally, textbooks are said to “present a coherent, thematically integrated view of a discipline” (2010: 664). This transfer of academic knowledge to textbooks is subject of Stambaugh & Trank’s research (2010), in which they aim to discover the extent to which new areas of research that have received an increasing amount of attention in the academic literature have moved into textbooks (2010: 663). The present study was initiated by a comparable interest in integrating new research into textbooks, especially seen Stambaugh & Trank’s belief that more recent research is not being integrated into textbooks (2010: 664), and by academics’ call for more research on textbooks as a medium for bringing academic knowledge into practice (Stambaugh & Trank, 2010: 673).

Furthermore, we are interested in the specific knowledge that management textbooks provide to future change agents and managers, seen the fact that management textbooks in particular form the theoretical foundation of our future change agents’ and managers’ knowledge. More particularly, we are interested in the integration and transferal of knowledge regarding the before mentioned concepts resistance to change and readiness for change.

(10)

based upon the concept of mental models, which further explains the ‘vehicle role’ played by management textbooks in forming the theoretical foundation of future change agents’ and managers’ knowledge. Mental models are defined as “simplified knowledge or structures or cognitive representations about how the business environment works” (Gary & Wood 2011: 2), or “representations of reality, which […] give meaning to the informational signals received” Kiesler & Sproull (1982). Mental models are of great importance to organizations and during organizational change, seen the fact that “more accurate mental models lead to better decision rules and higher performance” and “accurate mental models of the key principles are sufficient to achieve superior performance”. (Gary & Wood 2011: 1). Dent & Goldberg cite Boulding, who suggested that “inappropriate mental models are one of the primary factors causing organizational dysfunction today, even threatening the survival of some organizations (1988: 101). Dent & Goldberg further emphasize the importance of mental models, by arguing that “mental models are critically important” because “change efforts that automatically expect resistance to change will likely be planned and implemented less than effectively” (1999: 26).

Research Questions

(11)

incorporating multiple levels and explaining relationships among these levels in theories of change are granted (Bouckenooghe, 2010: 508, 524; Dansereau, Yammarino & Kohles, 1999; Poole & van de Ven, 2004). This research question will also be answered from a comparative point of view, which entails a comparison between organizational behaviour textbooks and change management textbooks.

To further address the issue of the transferal of knowledge from textbooks to future change agents and managers, we formulated secondary research questions: “which influential authors, theories, and stories concerning resistance to change and readiness for change and their antecedents are often referred to in management textbooks?”. Answering this additional research question will allow us to see whether academics’ calls for a more two-sided view of resistance (Ford et al., 2008; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Piderit, 2000), and for an expanded understanding of the sources of change resistance (Ford et al., 2008; Choi, 2011) have indeed been heard. Furthermore, it will allow us to see whether management textbooks merely present the concept itself, or if they discuss its antecedents as well, and thereby present a more complete view of the concept. Lastly, we will see which component(s) of resistance to change and readiness for change is/are mainly considered in our corpus of management textbooks. Similar to the previous research questions, these will also be answered from a comparative point of view.

Finally, an additional comparative analysis will be made between this study’s results and the results of a comparable study on popular management books (Baart, 2014). In this final analysis, the first research question is “does the presentation of the concepts resistance to change and readiness for change differ between management textbooks and popular management books”? Additionally, we formulated a second research question: “how do responses to academics’ calls for a multilevel and multiple-perspective view of resistance to change differ between management textbooks and popular management books?”

Research Structure

(12)

We will continue with a methodological section where the measurement instrument will be presented, and lastly, we present our findings and draw conclusions in order to answer our research questions.

2. Literature Review

In this section we will review the academic literature and explore what knowledge is being transferred by management textbooks to future change agents and managers. In describing what knowledge is being transferred, we are especially interested in the early use, as well as the current state of affairs, with respect to the concepts resistance to change and readiness for change. We will consider the most discussed topics in contemporary change management literature, with regard to our two core concepts, which will subsequently be used for our analysis.

Resistance To Change

As early as 1945, Lewin called for research on “the conditions of group life and the forces which bring about change or which resist change” (Dent & Goldberg, 1999: 30), and thereby setting the tone for change resistance being a systems concept. In 1948, Coch & French published the first research on resistance to change. In their research, focus was upon “the undesirable behaviors of workers in response to management-imposed changes in jobs and work methods” (Piderit, 2000, 784), seeing resistance to change as a psychological concept, or as something which is bound to the individual. Lewin published his research three years later, continuing along the same lines, by defining resistance to change as a systems concept, which resulted in his field theory, consisting of three parts: action research, force field analysis and a three-step model of change (1951). A third leading research was Kotter & Schlesinger’s (1979), which considered resistance to be a characteristic of change recipients, or a psychological concept, again. In their article, Kotter & Schlesinger aim to increase managers’ “skills at diagnosing resistance to change and at choosing the appropriate methods for overcoming it” (1979: 106).

(13)

Bouckenooghe, the dichotomy between the positive and negative view on change resistance has existed ever since Jacobson (1957) used the more positive term readiness for change, after Coch & French solely paid negative attention to the concept, by addressing strategies to overcome resistance to change in the late 1940s (2010: 502). Bouckenooghe moreover indicates that the positive-negative mindset is also found in more recent academic work, for example in Lines’ research, who views “an attitude toward organizational change as an employee’s overall positive or negative evaluative judgment of a change initiative implemented by his or her organization” (Lines, 2005; Boukenooghe, 2010: 502). Ultimately, this negative idea of organizational change “had become crystallized into what can be called received truth” (Dent & Goldberg, 1999: 39).

However, academics increasingly call for an emphasis on the possible positive aspects of change resistance and to see it as a possible contributor to change success (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Piderit, 2000; Ford et al., 2008; Ford & Ford, 2010), and other academics (Nord & Jermier, 1994; Oreg, 2006) even plea for abandoning the “prevalent negative view of overcoming or resisting resistance” (Bouckenooghe, 2010: 505). As mentioned in the introductory section, this change in the discussion on resistance to change is furthermore indicated by the more frequently mentioned concept readiness for change, which will be discussed in a following section.

(14)

combined in research are the group and organizational level.

At the individual level, the concept resistance to change is said to consist of three components: the cognitive, affective and intentional/behavioural component (Piderit, 2000). According to Piderit, “portraying resistance in terms of behaviour has been common since the earliest work on the topic” (2000: 785). Coch & French (1948), for example, focus on resistance as a behaviour, seen their emphasis on the “undesirable behaviors of workers in response to management-imposed changes in jobs and work methods” (Piderit, 2000: 785). More recently, Bovey & Hede defined resistance as a behaviour too, by stating that it entails “an individual’s intentions to engage in either supportive or resistant behaviour toward organizational change” (2001: 375). Piderit additionally refers to several other, more contemporary authors who focused on resistance as a behaviour (2000: 785):

“Brower & Abolafia (1995) define resistance as a particular kind of action or or inaction, and Ashforth & Mael (1998) define resistance as intentional acts of commission (defiance) or omission. Similarly, Shapiro, Lewicki & Devine (1995) suggest that willingness to deceive authorities constitutes resistance to change, and Sagie, Elizur & Greenbaum (1985) use compliant behaviour as evidence or reduced resistance”.

(15)

Even though numerous authors describe merely one component of resistance to change, some do discuss more, for example Folger & Skarlicki (1999) and Coetsee (1999). The latter “conceived resistance as a continuum that ranges from apathy (i.e., indifference) to aggressive resistance (i.e., destructive opposition)” (Bouckenooghe, 2010: 504).

(16)

A final trend seen in change management literature is the discussion of antecedents of resistance to change. According to Oreg et al. (2011), “the antecedents to explicit reactions are appropriately conceptualized as the reasons for the reactions rather than the reaction itself” (2011: 479). According to the same author, antecedents, or sources, of change resistance can predict recipients’ reactions to change directly, and can even have indirect, but longer-term consequences for change initiatives (Oreg et al., 2011: 479). In this review article, Oreg et al. make a distinction between five categories of antecedents: change recipient characteristics, internal context, change process, perceived benefit/harm, and change content (2011: 479). Examples of change recipient characteristics, as an antecedent of resistance to change, are personality traits, their attitude toward change, openness to experience, coping style, and organizational status. Variables that belong to the antecedent category of internal context are, for example, the presence of a supportive environment and trust, organizational commitment, culture and climate, and job characteristics. The third category of antecedents, change process, includes variables like participation, communication, and interactional and procedural justice, whereas variables such as distributive justice and anticipation of negative or positive outcomes belong to the category of perceived benefit/harm. The last category of antecedents, as presented by Oreg et al., is change content, which contains variables like compensation system, downsizing, job redesign, and extent of change.

Readiness For Change

(17)

need for change and securing mechanisms, such as communication or culture, that will support change in the adoption and institutionalization phases (2013: 101).

In the change management literature, several limitations can be identified with regard to the concept readiness for change. One of those limitations, according to Rafferty, Jimmieson & Armenakis (2013), is the lack of a multilevel perspective in the discussion on change readiness. Rafferty et al. state that many authors (Caldwell, Herold & Fedor, 2004; Caldwell, Yi, Fedor & Herold, 2009; Pettigrew et al., 2001; Whelan-Barry, Gordon & Hinings, 2003) do acknowledge the existence and need for incorporating multiple levels in change readiness research, but “these processes have not been reflected in our thinking about change readiness” (Rafferty et al., 2013: 112). Moreover, Bouckenooghe states that “studies need to report more meticulously the underlying dynamics and relationships between readiness measured at the individual level and the conclusions drawn about readiness at the organizational or collective level” (2010: 515). Vakola (2013), however, does take a multilevel perspective in describing readiness at the macro-, meso-, and micro level of analysis, which corresponds to individual, group, and organizational readiness for change (2013: 97), and this multilevel approach was also found in Stevens’ study on conceptualizing change readiness (2013).

In the (individual-level) debate on readiness for change, we see a discussion on the use of the tridimensional view, similar to the discussion found in the debate on resistance to change. Bouckenooghe indicates that the most cited definition of change readiness, “organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes”, (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993), does refer to the three components of the tridimensional view (cognitive, affective and intentional/behavioural) (2010: 503). However, Bouckenooghe continues, “there is a strong emphasis on the cognitive component referring to the necessity or urgency of change” (2010: 503).

(18)

to change. Rafferty et al.’s numerous antecedents can be categorized into four categories, which equal Oreg et al.’s five categories of antecedents (2011: 479). In this case, Rafferty et al.’s and Oreg et al.’s perceived benefit/harm categories are equal, and their external organizational pressures category equals Oreg et al.’s change content category. Likewise, Rafferty et al.’s internal context antecedents are identical to antecedents from Oreg et al.’s internal context and change process categories, antecedents from Rafferty et al.’s last category of personnel/group composition characteristics are consistent with Oreg et al.’s change recipient category.

3. Methodology

This research consists of a systematic qualitative literature review, which analyses a corpus of management textbooks in order to answer the main research question. Following Crossan & Apaydin (2010) and Tranfield, Denyer & Smart (2003), this literature review consists of three phases: selecting, analyzing and synthesizing relevant literature (Elliot, 2011: 197).

Selection

(19)

publishers’ websites was executed, using the before mentioned search terms, which resulted in an additional selection of fifteen titles. One title was eliminated from the selection due to poor search possibilities offered by the book, resulting in a final corpus of nineteen titles. The results of the corpus composition can be found in appendix B and table 1. In this corpus, a distinction was made between organizational behaviour textbooks and change management textbooks, which is expected to lead to interesting insights with regard to the differences between the more general organizational behaviour titles, and the more specialized change management titles.

Corpus

Organizational behaviour textbooks Change management textbooks

Author Title Author Title

Buchanan, D.A. & Huczynski, A.A.

Organizational Behavior (7th ed.)

van Aken, J., Berends, H. & van der Bij, H.

Problem Solving in Organizations (2nd ed.) Buelens, M., Sindin,

K., Waldstrøm, C., Kreitner, R. & Kinicki, A.

Organizational

Behaviour (4th_ed.) Burnes, B.

Managing Change. A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics (5th ed.) Bloisi, W., Cook, C.W. & Hunsaker, P.L. Management & Organizational Behaviour (2nd European ed.) Cawsey, T.F., Deszca, G. & Ingols, C. Organizational Change. An Action-Oriented Toolkit

George, J.M. & Jones, G.R. Understanding and Managing Organizational Behaviour (5th_ed.) Cummings, T.G. & Worley, C.G. Organizational Development and Change (8th_ed.) Knights, D. & Willmott, H. Introducing Organizational Behaviour and Management

Grieves, J. Organizational Change. _{Themes & Issues.}

Mullins, L.J.

Essentials of Organizational Behaviour

Hayes, J.

The Theory and Practice of Change Management (4th_ed.)

Osland, J.S., Kolb, D.A., Rubin, I.M. & Turner, M.E.

Organizational Behavior. An

Experiential Approach (8th_ed.)

Hughes, M. Change Management.

A Critical Perspective. Robbins, S.P. & Judge,

T.A.

Organizational

Behavior (13th_ed.) Jabri, M. Managing _{Organizational Change}

Jones, G.R. Organizational Theory, _{Design and Change} Myers, P., Hulks, S. &

Wiggings, L.

Organizational Change. Perspectives on Theory and Practice

Palmer, I., Dunford, R. & Akin, G. Managing Organizational Change. A Multiple Perspectives Approach (2nd_ed.)

Senior, B. & Swailes, S.

Organizational Change (4th_ed.)

(20)

General Analysis

The second phase, following the composition of the research corpus, was the content analysis of the selected textbooks, which consisted of three parts: the individual content analysis, the overall content analysis, and two comparative content analyses (organizational behaviour titles versus change management titles, and popular management books versus management textbooks).

For the individual part of the analysis, a documentation form was created (see Appendix D). The first part of this documentation form allows us to collect general information such as the textbook’s title, author(s), the main text’s number of pages, and whether the textbook belongs to the group of organizational behaviour titles, or to the group of change management titles (see table 2).

Individual analysis form General information

Title Full title

Author(s) Surname, Initial(s)

Number of pages (main text) 123

Specialization Organizational behaviour or change management

Table 2: individual analysis form, general information

Then, a list of search terms was composed, for the index search in each individual textbook (see appendix C). The composition of the list of search terms was motivated by the research question and the hereafter-discussed focal points, or dualities. Examples of such search terms were resistance (to change), readiness (for change), Lewin, and Kotter. For each individual textbook, we then documented the search terms that were found in the textbooks’ indexes and main texts.

Next, information is collected regarding the amount of attention that is being paid to both resistance to change and readiness for change. This is realised by investigating the absolute and relative number of pages dedicated to these two concepts (table 3).

Attention paid to concept

Resistance to change -‐ _-‐ Absolute number of pages: Relative number of pages: % Readiness for change -‐ _-‐ Absolute number of pages:

Relative number of pages: %

(21)

In-Depth Content Analysis

For the in-depth content analysis, Bouckenooghe’s (2010) conceptual review approach was used, which is based upon four focal points, so-called ‘theoretical lenses’: “(a) nature of change, (b) level of change, (c) positive-negative view on change, and (d) research perspective” (2010: 500). In the light of the present study’s research questions, Bouckenooghe’s approach was slightly adapted to construct an appropriate and accurate measurement instrument. Therefore, when analyzing the content, we will specifically pay attention to the (a) nature of discussion, (b) level of analysis, (c) tridimensional view, (d) perspective, (e) antecedents, and (f) influential authors and theories.

(a) Nature of discussion

We will first focus upon the nature or tone of the discussion on resistance to change and readiness for change. We will explore whether resistance is discussed merely positively (seeing recipients’ resistance to change as a resource for change, (Ford & Ford, 2008)) or negatively (resistance as an explanation for the failure of change initiatives; resistance must be overcome), or whether light is shed on both the positive and negative aspects, or whether no judgment is passed at all, making the discussion neutral. This typology will also be applied for the analysis of the discussion of the concept readiness for change.

Tone

Nature of the discussion on resistance to change (a)

-‐ Positive -‐ Negative -‐ Both -‐ Neutral Nature of the discussion on readiness

for change (a)

-‐ Positive -‐ Negative -‐ Both -‐ Neutral

Table 4: individual analysis form, nature/tone of the discussion.

(b) Level of analysis

(22)

Analysis of the concepts

Level of change analysis (b) -‐ resistance

1. Individual level 2. Group level

3. Organizational level 4. Not mentioned

Level of change analysis (b) -‐ readiness

1. Individual level 2. Group level

3. Organizational level 4. Not mentioned

Table 5: individual analysis, level of analysis

(c) Tridimensional view

Next, focus will be upon Piderit’s (2000) tridimensional, or tripartite point of view. These three dimensions will form this study’s third focal point, which will allow us to see whether contemporary textbooks discuss resistance to change and readiness for change as a cognitive, affective, or intentional/behavioural concept.

Tridimensional view (c) -‐ resistance

-‐ Cognitive -‐ Affective

-‐ Intentional/behavioural

-‐ All dimensions were discussed (Piderit) -‐ No dimension was mentioned/not clear Tridimensional view (c)

-‐ readiness

-‐ Cognitive -‐ Affective

-‐ Intentional/behavioural

-‐ All dimensions were discussed (Piderit) -‐ No dimension was mentioned/not clear

Table 6: individual analysis, tridimensional level of resistance to change

(d) Perspective

As mentioned before, the concept resistance to change can be discussed from two perspectives; either from a change recipient’s perspective or from a change agent’s perspective (see table 7).

Resistance is described from (e)

-‐ Agent’s perspective: -‐ Recipient’s perspective: -‐ Resistance was not discussed

Table 7: individual analysis, perspective

(e) Antecedents

(23)

resistance to change and readiness for change, namely (1) change recipient characteristics, (2) internal context, (3) change process, (4) perceived benefit/harm, and (5) change content (see table 8).

Antecedents

-‐ resistance to change (f)

1. change recipient characteristics 2. internal context

3. change process 4. perceived benefit/harm 5. change content Ancedents

-‐ readiness for change (f)

1. change recipient characteristics 2. internal context

3. change process 4. perceived benefit/harm 5. change content

Table 8: individual analysis, antecedents

(f) Influential authors and theories

Lastly, we will focus on influential authors and their pioneering theories to see whether they are (still) referred to in contemporary management textbooks or not. First, we will search for a reference to Coch & French’s groundbreaking research on resistance to change. Secondly, we will investigate the presence of Lewin and his three major theories: Force Field Analysis, Action Research, and the Three-Step Model of Change. Finally, we are going to investigate the presence of Kotter & Schlesinger’s theory on managing resistance to change.

Influential authors and theories

Influential authors (g)

-‐ Lewin:

o Three-step model o Action research o Force Field Analysis -‐ Kotter & Schlesinger

o Managing resistance to change -‐ Coch & French:

o First research on resistance to change

Table 9: individual analysis, influential authors and theories

Overall In-Depth Analysis

(24)

Comparative In-Depth Analysis (1)

In this research, a distinction is made between organizational behaviour textbooks and change management textbooks. This distinction is based upon the fact that change management textbooks represent a specialized field of management education within organizational science, and are therefore assumed to present a more precise and refined view with respect to the concept resistance to change than the more general organizational behaviour textbooks, which are expected to present a more one-sided, superficial view, seen the fact that change management textbooks are the more specialized literature, in comparison to organizational behaviour textbooks, which have a broader focus. For this comparative part, an additional documentation form was developed, which can be found in appendix F).

Comparative In-Depth Analysis (2)

A second comparative analysis is performed, between the present study’s results and the results of Baart’s (2014) study. The comparison concerned all aspects included in the last two research questions.

4. Results

In this chapter and the next, the three-phased research method as described earlier will be continued with the data synthesis phase. First, the collected data will be presented, and next, these figures will be assigned an interpretation.

Findings

(25)

Analysis of general information

For this research we used a corpus of 19 management textbooks. The complete corpus used for this research can be found in table 1 and in appendix B.

With respect to the presence of the search terms (see appendix C), we find that eighteen out of our nineteen textbooks discuss the concept resistance to change, and ten textbooks discuss readiness for change. Other responses to change, such as willingness to change, commitment to change, cynism for change, and openness for change are found in three, nine, two, and four titles respectively. Frequently cited authors like Coch & French (1948), Lewin (1951), and Kotter & Schlesinger (1979) are referred to in three, seventeen, and sixteen management textbooks. More specifically, Lewin’s Action Research was mentioned in twelve titles, his Force Field Theory received attention in ten titles, and the Three-Step Model was described in seven titles (see appendix G).

On average, the management textbooks paid approximately twice as much attention to the concept resistance to change than to readiness for change. In absolute numbers, resistance for change was discussed on 11,35 pages, representing an average of 3,16% per title. The concept readiness for change, in contrast, is described on 1,48% or 5,86 pages per title (see table 10).

Table 10: average attention for resistance to change and readiness for change

(a) Nature of discussion

From the results in table 11 we see that eight out of nineteen textbooks discuss both the positive and negative aspects of the concept resistance to change. In five titles, the concept was discussed in a negative fashion only, and in five other titles, the concept was described from a neutral point of view. Resistance was not described positively in any title. One final title, however, did not discuss resistance to change at all. If our second concept readiness for change was discussed at all, like it was in ten out of

Attention paid to concepts

Proportion

Average attention for resistance

-‐ Absolute number of pages: 11,35

-‐ Relative number of pages: 3,16% Absolute nr of pages: 1,9 Relative nr of pages: 2,1 Average attention for

readiness -‐

(26)

nineteen titles, it was discussed in a positive manner only. In nine other titles, however, readiness was not mentioned.

Table 11: tone of the discussion on resistance to change

Table 12 shows us that resistance to change was predominantly discussed at the individual level (sixteen titles). The organizational level of analysis was considered in six titles, and one final title discussed change resistance at the group level. In the ten titles that mention readiness for change, the concept is exclusively analysed at the individual level (see table 12).

Table 12: Level of analysis

(c) Tridimensional level

The concept resistance to change was subsequently analysed in the light of the tridimensional view. Recall that in total, eighteen textbooks discussed resistance. The cognitive component or dimension of resistance to change was present in six titles, the affective component or dimension was found in four titles, and the intentional/behavioural component was used to present resistance in seven other titles.

Piderit’s (2000) complete conceptualization was discussed in six titles. In one last title it was not clear which component of resistance to change was described. These results can also be found in table 13. Readiness for change was discussed in ten titles,

Tone of the discussion on resistance to change

Tone of the discussion on resistance to change

-‐ Positive: 0 -‐ Negative: 5 -‐ Both: 8 -‐ Neutral: 5

-‐ Resistance was not discussed: 1

Level of analysis Level of analysis -‐ resistance -‐ Individual level: 16 -‐ Group level: 1 -‐ Organizational level: 8 -‐ All: 5

-‐ Resistance was not discussed: 1 Level of analysis -‐ readiness -‐ Individual level: 3 -‐ Group level: 0 -‐ Organizational level: 8 -‐ All: 1

(27)

three of which discussed the cognitive component, and two titles also considered the affective component. In seven titles, though, the level of analysis of readiness was the organization, so none of the three components was discussed.

Table 13: tridimensional view

(d) Perspective

Furthermore, the indicators we found in the textbooks suggest that thirteen of the eighteen titles that discuss change resistance write from the agent’s perspective, and the other five titles that discuss resistance do this from the recipient’s perspective (see table 14).

Table 14: perspective (e) Antecedents

Next, we investigated the presence and character of mentioned antecedents of resistance to change as well as readiness for change. Seventeen out of the eighteen textbooks that discussed resistance to change also discussed its antecedents. In total, we found 159 mentions of antecedents of resistance, 88 of which belonged to ‘change recipient characteristics’ category. The ‘internal context’ category contained 25 mentions, ‘perceived benefit/harm’ contained 21 mentions, and ‘change content’ contained seventeen mentions of antecedents. The category with the least mentions (eight) was ‘change process’. Six textbooks out of the ten that discussed change readiness also discussed its sources, with a total of 57 mentions. The ‘change recipient characteristics’ category contained six mentions, the ‘change process’ category contained seven mentions, and the ‘change content’ category contained eight

Tridimensional view Tridimensional view -‐ resistance -‐ Cognitive: 6 -‐ Affective: 4 -‐ Intentional/Behavioural: 7

-‐ All dimensions were discussed (Piderit): 6 -‐ No dimension was discussed/not clear: 1 Tridimensional view

-‐ readiness

-‐ Cognitive: 3 -‐ Affective: 2

-‐ Intentional/Behavioural: 0

-‐ All dimensions were discussed (Piderit): 0 -‐ No dimension was discussed/not clear: 7

Perspective

Agent’s perspective 13

(28)

Antecedents of readiness for change

Change recipient characteristics (6) Internal context (36) Change process (7) Perceived benefit/harm (0) Change content (8) Antecedents of resistance to change Change recipient characteristics (88) Internal context (25) Change process (8) Perceived benefit/harm (21) Change content (17)

mentions. The majority of readiness antecedents mentions belong to the ‘internal context’ category, and none of the readiness antecedents mentioned in the management textbooks belong to the ‘perceived benefit/harm’ category (see figure 1).

Figure 1: antecedents of resistance to change and readiness for change

Lastly, we investigated whether frequently cited change management academics and their most relevant theories were referred to or not in our corpus. Authors included in this analysis were Coch & French (first research on resistance to change), Lewin (Force Field Analysis, Action Research, and Three-Step Model), and Kotter & Schlesinger (theory on managing resistance). First, in four titles, we found references to Coch & French’s research on resistance to change. In thirteen titles we found a reference to Lewin’s Force Field Analysis and Action Research. In fifteen titles, Lewin’s Three-Step Model was cited. In six textbooks we found a reference to Kotter & Schlesinger’s theory on managing resistance to change.

Organizational Behaviour Textbooks Versus Change Management Textbooks In our corpus, we distinguish seven organizational behaviour textbooks, and the other twelve textbooks belong to the category of, more specialized, change management textbooks.

(29)

change, was discussed in three out of seven organizational behaviour textbooks. Comparable proportions are found for change management textbooks; eleven out of twelve discuss resistance to change, and seven of them discuss change readiness. Willingness to change is mentioned in one organizational behaviour title and in two change management titles; commitment to change is mentioned in three organizational behaviour titles and in six change management titles; cynism was mentioned in two change management titles, and openness to change is mentioned twice in organizational behaviour textbooks only. Then, pioneering authors Coch & French (1948) were cited in two organizational behaviour titles, and in two change management titles, whereas Lewin (1951) was cited in five organizational behaviour titles and in twelve change management titles. Kotter & Schlesinger (1979), to conclude, were cited in six organizational behaviour titles and in ten change management titles. In organizational behaviour titles, we find three references to Lewin’s (1951) Action Research, and his Force Field Analysis and Three-Step Model were discussed in one and two titles respectively, whereas Action Research and Force Field Analysis were both discussed in nine change management titles, and the Three-Step Model was discussed in five.

(30)

almost eight times more attention to the concept readiness for change than do organizational behaviour textbooks.

Furthermore, the figures point out that the proportions between the attention paid to resistance to change and readiness for change differ between both corpora. In organizational behaviour textbooks, the amount of attention paid to resistance to change is five times higher than the attention paid to readiness for change. In change management textbooks, the figures regarding these proportions are distinct: the amount of attention paid to resistance to change is approximately three times higher than the attention paid to readiness for change.

Attention paid to concepts (proportion)

Organizational behaviour textbooks Change management textbooks Proportion Resistance to change 0,96% 4,92% 5,1 Readiness for change 0,19% 1,47% 7,7 Proportion 5,1 3,3

Table 15: proportions in organizational behaviour textbooks versus change management textbooks

(a) Nature of the discussion

In organizational change textbooks, resistance to change receives no positive attention; zero titles were found that assign merely positive traits to the concept. Two of the seven titles discuss the concept in a negative manner, and two other titles pay both positive and negative attention to the concept. Three of these titles, however, do not take a clear line and approach the concept in a neutrally. Similar to organizational behaviour textbooks, the change management textbooks do not pay attention exclusively to possible positive aspects of resistance. Three titles, on the other hand, do pay merely negative attention to the concept. A majority of six titles discusses both the positive and negative characteristics of resistance to change and two titles describe the concept neutrally (see table 16 on the following page).

(31)

attention. A neutral point of view was not taken either. As mentioned before, nine titles did not discuss readiness for change at all, four of which were organizational behaviour textbooks, and the other five titles belonged to the category of change management textbooks (see table 16).

Table 16: tone of the discussion in organizational behaviour textbooks versus change management textbooks

In organizational behaviour textbooks, resistance to change was predominantly reviewed at the individual level, and in four cases, this was combined with a review of the concept at the organizational level. An analysis of the concept at the group level, or a combination of one of the three levels of analysis, was not found in organizational behaviour titles. In change management titles, a more diverse picture as found. Nine out of twelve titles gave attention to the individual level of resistance, while two others discussed the concept at the organizational level. A review of the concept at the group level was found in one title. One other title discussed resistance to change at all three levels of analysis. One final title did not discuss resistance to change at all.

Table 17 shows that in organizational behaviour titles readiness for change, was discussed from an organizational point of view (three titles), if the concept was discussed at all. In four other titles, readiness was not part of the argument. Again, a more diverse picture was found for organizational change textbooks. The concept was mainly discussed from an organizational point of view (five titles), followed by the individual level (three titles) and a combination of all three levels of analysis (one title). In five other titles, readiness was not discussed.

Tone of the discussion on resistance to change and readiness for change

Tone of the discussion on resistance to change -‐ Positive: 0 -‐ Negative: 2 -‐ Both: 2 -‐ Neutral: 3 -‐ Not discussed: 0 -‐ Positive: 0 -‐ Negative: 3 -‐ Both: 6 -‐ Neutral: 2 -‐ Not discussed: 1 Tone of the discussion

(32)

Table 17: level of analysis in organizational behaviour textbooks versus change management textbooks

When analysing the discussion of one or more tridimensional components (Piderit, 2000), we see that seven organizational behaviour textbooks discuss resistance to change on the individual level. These titles mainly review the affective (found in three titles) and intentional/behavioural (found in four titles) components of resistance to change. In one other case, the cognitive component of resistance was described. All three dimensions of Piderit’s (2000) conceptualization were discussed in one organizational behaviour title and for one last title from this category we could not determine which component was being depicted. In the category of change management textbooks we found eleven titles that discussed change resistance, nine of which discussed the concept at the individual level. For this category, we see different figures regarding the use of tridimensional view components. The cognitive dimension was found in five titles, the affective component in one, and the intentional/behavioural component in three. Five titles explicitly mentioned Piderit (2000) and the tridimensional view and therefore discussed all three components (see table 18).

Our second concept readiness for change was not discussed at the individual level in organizational behaviour textbooks; hence we did not find any indications of one of the components of the tridimensional view. Three out of seven change management titles discussed readiness at the individual level. These three titles all considered the cognitive component, and two titles also considered the affective component of readiness for change (see table 18).

Level of analysis of resistance to change and readiness for change

(33)

Table 18: tridimensional view in organizational behaviour textbooks versus change management textbooks

(d) Perspective

Then, we analysed the texts to see whether the change agent’s perspective or the recipient’s perspective were paid attention to. This analysis revealed that organizational behaviour textbooks merely consider the agent’s perspective when discussing resistance to change. A small majority of change management textbooks (6 titles) consider the agent’s perspective, but five other titles take the change recipient’s perspective into account (see table 19).

Table 19: perspective in organizational behaviour textbooks versus change management textbooks

(e) Antecedents

With respect to the antecedents, or sources, of resistance to change and readiness for change, we can say that all seven organizational behaviour titles consider antecedents of resistance, and three consider readiness’ antecedents. Ten out of the eleven change management textbooks that discuss resistance to change also consider its sources, whereas only three of them consider the causes of readiness for change. In total, we found 159 mentions of resistance antecedents, 84 in organizational behaviour textbooks, and 75 in change management textbooks. The exact figures of antecedents found for each of the five categories (change recipient characteristics, internal context, change process, perceived benefit/harm, and change content) can be found in table 20.

Tridimensional view

Organizational behaviour textbooks Change management textbooks

Tridimensional view -‐ resistance

-‐ Intentional/Behavioural: 4 -‐ All dimensions (Piderit): 1 -‐ Not discussed: 1

-‐ Intentional/Behavioural: 3 -‐ All dimensions (Piderit): 5 -‐ Not discussed: 0 Tridimensional view -‐ readiness -‐ Cognitive: 0 -‐ Affective: 0 -‐ Intentional/Behavioural: 0 -‐ All dimensions (Piderit): 0 -‐ Not discussed/not clear: 3

-‐ Intentional/Behavioural: 0 -‐ All dimensions (Piderit): 0 -‐ Not discussed/not clear: 7

Perspective

Agent’s perspective 7 6

(34)

Table 20: antecedents in organizational behaviour textbooks versus change management textbooks

Finally, we compared the presence or reference to influential authors and their theories. With respect to Coch & French, we found that out of the seven organizational behaviour textbooks, two discussed their pioneering research, as well as two change management textbooks. Furthermore, both organizational behaviour textbooks and change management textbooks refer to Lewin and his three major theories. His Force Field Analysis was referred to in three organizational behaviour titles and ten change management titles, Action Research was discussed in three organizational behaviour textbooks, and in ten organizational change textbooks, and his Three-Step Model was mentioned in four organizational behaviour textbooks, and in eleven change management textbooks. Lastly, Kotter & Schlesinger and their theory on managing resistance to change, was discussed in two organizational behaviour titles and in four change management titles.

Management Textbooks Versus Popular Management Books

Baart’s comparable study (2014) entails a corpus of twenty popular management books, all of which discuss resistance to change, and readiness for change was discussed in eight titles. Willingness to change was referred to once in Baart’s corpus (2014), and in three of our management textbooks. Commitment to change was discussed more frequently, in five out of twenty popular management books, whereas nine out of nineteen management textbooks discuss this concept. Cynism to change was found once in the collection of popular management books, and openness to change was not found once, whereas management textbooks refer to cynism and

Antecedents

Resistance to change -‐ change recipient characteristics: 44 -‐ internal context: 12 -‐ change process: 5 -‐ perceived benefit/harm: 15 -‐ change content: 8 -‐ change recipient characteristics: 44 -‐ internal context: 13 -‐ change process: 3 -‐ perceived benefit/harm: 6 -‐ change content: 9

Readiness for change

(35)

openness twice. Lastly, the popular management books discuss support for change once. In management textbooks, this response to change was not discussed.

In Baart’s study (2014), comparable results are found with respect to the attention paid to both resistance to change and readiness for change. In thirteen out of twenty titles, resistance to change was discussed on 1-4% of the main text. Change readiness, on the other hand, received attention on less than 1% of the main text in six titles, and in two other titles on 1-4% of the main text.

(a) Nature of the discussion

Rather different results are found in Baart’s study (2014) with respect to the nature, or tone of the discussion on resistance to change. The positive aspects of resistance to change receive most attention; five out of twenty titles merely discuss the positive aspects, and eight out of twenty titles discuss both positive and negative aspects. The same applies for the discussion on readiness for change: five out of seven titles discussed the positive aspects of readiness and the two other titles discussed readiness from a neutral point of view.

Table 21: Tone of the discussion in popular management books versus management textbooks

In the popular management books, an equal amount of titles (eight) discuss resistance to change either at all three levels of analysis, or discuss the concept at the individual as well as the group level. The results for change readiness are rather different from our results: two titles discussed the concept at all three levels of analysis and two other titles discussed the concept at both the individual and organizational level. A

Tone of the discussion on resistance to change and readiness for change

Popular management books Management textbooks

Tone of the discussion on resistance for change

-‐ Positive: 5 -‐ Negative: 4 -‐ Both: 8 -‐ Neutral: 3 -‐ Not discussed: 0 -‐ Positive: 0 -‐ Negative: 5 -‐ Both: 8 -‐ Neutral: 5 -‐ Not discussed: 1 Tone of the discussion on

readiness for change

(36)

combination of the group level and organizational level was found in one title, and a discussion at just the organizational level was found in one other title. One more title did not mention a level of analysis, or it was not clear.

Table 23: level of analysis in popular management books versus management textbooks

Titles from Baart’s (2014) corpus predominantly discussed all three components of resistance to change (twelve titles). Four titles mentioned both the cognitive and affective components, and a combination of the affective and intentional/behavioural components was found in two other titles. The affective component and the intentional/behavioural component were both found once (also see table 24).

Table 24: tridimensional level in popular management books versus management textbooks

(d) Perspective

Different results were found in Baart’s study (2014), in which eight titles take the agent’s perspective and three titles discuss change resistance from the recipient’s perspective. In nine titles, the concept was discussed from both perspectives (see table 25).

Level of analysis of resistance to change and readiness for change

Level of analysis -‐ resistance -‐ Individual level: 11 -‐ Group level: 9 -‐ Organizational level: 1 -‐ All: 8 -‐ Not discussed: 0 -‐ Individual level: 16 -‐ Group level: 1 -‐ Organizational level: 6 -‐ All: 0 -‐ Not discussed: 1 Level of analysis -‐ readiness -‐ Individual level: 0 -‐ Group level: 0 -‐ Organizational level: 3 -‐ All: 0 -‐ Not discussed: 4 -‐ Individual level: 3 -‐ Group level: 0 -‐ Organizational level: 8 -‐ All: 1 -‐ Not discussed: 9 Tridimensional view

Tridimensional view -‐ resistance

-‐ Intentional/Behavioural: 4 -‐ All dimensions (Piderit): 1 -‐ Not discussed: 1

-‐ Intentional/Behavioural: 7 -‐ All dimensions (Piderit): 6 -‐ Not discussed: 1 Tridimensional view -‐ readiness -‐ Cognitive: 3 -‐ Affective: 1 -‐ Intentional/Behavioural: 2 -‐ All dimensions (Piderit): 2 -‐ Not discussed: 0

(37)

Table 25: perspective in popular management books versus management textbooks

(e) Antecedents

Similar to this study’s findings, most of the antecedents (27 out of 70) of Baart’s study (2014) belong to the category of ‘recipient characteristics’. In contrast, antecedents from the categories ‘internal context’ and ‘change content’ were mentioned respectively five and four times. Antecedents from both the ‘change process’ and ‘perceived benefit/harm’ categories were mentioned more often; fifteen and nineteen times, respectively (see table 26).

Table 26: antecedents in popular management books versus management textbooks

Interpretation

In this last part of the results section, the most remarkable results from the data analysis will be discussed and placed next to existing literature on the subject.

First, in the overall analysis as well as the comparative analysis, we see few extreme differences between organizational behaviour textbooks and change management textbooks regarding the presence of search terms. Nonetheless, we do see higher (relative) number of search terms like readiness for change, Lewin, Action Research, Force Field Analysis and Three-Step Model in change management textbooks than organizational behaviour textbooks. An explanation for this finding might be the fact

Perspective

Agent’s perspective 8 13

Recipient’s perspective 3 5

Both 9 0

Antecedents

Resistance to change -‐ change recipient characteristics: 27 -‐ internal context: 5 -‐ change process: 15 -‐ perceived benefit/harm: 19 -‐ change content: 4 -‐ change recipient characteristics: 88 -‐ internal context: 25 -‐ change process: 8 -‐ perceived benefit/harm: 21 -‐ change content: 17

Readiness for change

(38)

that these titles represent a specialized field of research, and are therefore expected to examine the matter further than organizational behaviour textbooks.

The substantial difference in the average amount of attention paid to the concepts resistance to change and readiness for change might be explained similarly. The fact that resistance to change receives more attention than readiness for change is surprising in the light of several author’s (Stevens, 2013; Vakola, 2013; Rafferty et al., 2013) claims that readiness is a significant determinant of change success.

Apart from the fact that change management textbooks pay five times more attention to resistance to change, it is interesting to see that change management textbooks pay more attention to readiness for change than do organizational behaviour textbooks. This possibly indicates that the former category of textbooks goes in front of the latter with respect to the requested move towards a less negative view of resistance. This thought is also supported by the figures regarding the proportions between resistance to change and readiness for change in both corpora.

(39)

management textbooks in general do (start to) pay attention to the more positive responses to change. Furthermore, the comparison between management textbooks and popular management books (Baart, 2014) shows dissimilar results, too. In contrast to our corpus, some popular management books discuss merely the positive aspects of change resistance. From this comparison we cannot, however, derive an explanation for the fact that popular management textbooks seem to pay more attention to the positive aspects of resistance.

A second interesting result concerns the level of analysis of the concept resistance to change. As discussed before, scholars like Bouckenooghe (2010), Danserau et al. (1999), and Poole & van de Ven (2004) argued for incorporating multiple levels in theories of change. However, none of this corpus’ management textbooks discusses resistance to change at all three levels of analysis. The great majority discusses resistance merely at the individual level, from statements that “resistance to change’ is a widely used phrase which captures a broad range of meaning. It applies to the individual employee who is asked to change their working practices and who puts up a fight […]” (2010: 263), to paragraphs on personal resistance (Osland, Kolb, Rubin & Turner, 2007: 646). Three textbooks, though, do discuss the concept at two levels, namely the individual and organizational level. This last result, however, is little surprising, in the view of the fact that “research into people’s attitudes is rooted in psychology” (Bouckenooghe, 2010: 514). When we look at popular management books (Baart, 2014), we see a different dichotomy; broadly speaking, resistance to change is discussed from either both the individual and organizational level, or from all three levels of analysis. This indicates that, in general, popular management books portray scholars’ desired situation to a larger extent than management textbooks.

(40)

In our results we see that a majority of our textbooks discuss resistance to change from the change agent’s perspective. This mainly applies for organizational behaviour textbooks, which contain paragraphs which discuss strategies to deal with or overcome resistance (Cummings & Worley, 2005). These results confirm the prevailing view that “the predominant perspective on resistance is decidedly one sided, in favour of change agents and their sponsors” (Ford et al. 2008: 362), and they reconcile with results from earlier studies like Dent & Goldberg’s (1999), and Ford et al.’s (2008). Change management textbooks, on the other hand, show different figures. Half of the textbooks from this category discussed resistance from the agent’s perspective, and from the recipient’s perspective in nearly all remaining titles. Examples of this change recipient perspective are paragraphs about understanding recipients’ perceptions of change (Cawsey et al, 2012: 189-96), or paragraphs and statements about change agent interpretation as the cause of resistance (Grieves, 2010: 368; Hayes, 2014: 236). Popular management books (Baart, 2014) show a similar pattern and also appear to answer scholars’ calls for a more two-sided perspective in the discussion on change resistance.

The Representation of Resistance to Change and Readiness for Change