• No results found

The first finding is that the majority of the popular management books which discussed resistance or readiness give little scientific explanation of both concepts

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The first finding is that the majority of the popular management books which discussed resistance or readiness give little scientific explanation of both concepts"

Copied!
54
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

1

Change readiness and change resistance:

The content of popular management books

Master thesis, MScBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

June 23, 2014

Oeds Baart

Student number: s2412845 Berkelstraat 19B 9725 GV Groningen Tel: +31 (0)-6 5066 8156

oedsbaart@hotmail.com

First Supervisor / University:

Dr. J.C.L. Paul / Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Second Supervisor / University:

Dr. dr. B. Müller/ Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Words (excluding tables): 12,159

(2)

2

(3)

3 Abstract

This paper contributes to the resistance to change and readiness for change discussion by examining how both concepts are addressed in popular management books. The goal is to discover the nature of popular management discourse that is giving advice for practitioners regarding resistance and readiness to change. A literature review has been conducted in order to address this goal. The first finding is that the majority of the popular management books which discussed resistance or readiness give little scientific explanation of both concepts. The view in popular management books towards both central concepts is dominantly positive, and is more progressive than scientific literature and textbooks in that sense. The results and conclusion from this research add to the discussion about the scientifically knowledge assimilation process by popular press books. Furthermore, it contributes to the positive psychology movement by giving insight in the positive approach of popular change management books regarding resistance of change and readiness to change.

Keyword: Change, readiness for change, resistance to change, change attitudes, popular management books, management discourse, literature review, positive psychology

movement

(4)

4

(5)

5

Contents

1. Introduction ...7

2. Literature...11

2.1 Change resistance ... 12

2.2 Change readiness ... 15

2.3 Change attitudes ... 18

3. Methodology ...18

3.1 Selection ... 19

3.2 Analysis ... 20

3.2.1 Concept information... 20

3.2.2 Conceptual lenses analysis ... 22

3.2.3 Inductive research... 23

4. Results ...24

4.1 Concept information... 25

4.1.1 Search terms and relative attention paid to concept... 25

4.1.2 Definitions ... 27

4.1.3 Antecedents of resistance ... 29

4.2 Conceptual lenses ... 30

4.2.1 Positive/ negative focus ... 30

4.2.2 Agent/recipient perspective towards resistance ... 32

4.2.3 Conceptual level of analysis ... 32

4.2.4 Tridimensional state... 34

4.3 Inductive research... 35

4.3.1 Influential authors ... 35

4.3.2 Readiness assessment ... 36

4.3.3 Appreciative inquiry ... 37

5. Conclusion ...38

6. Discussion ...39

6.1 Science-practice gap ... 39

6.2 Positive approach ... 40

6.3 Implications for theory and practice ... 41

6.4 Research limitations en future research ... 42

References ...44

(6)

6 Appendix 1: example of an individual book analysis ...49 Appendix 2: Overall analysis form ...51

(7)

7

1. Introduction

Resistance to change is an important and well known concept in change literature. It would probably be hard to find a popular change book which does not address resistance to change. The notion of resistance creates for most people the image in which implementers force change upon the change receivers which are anxious about the implementation, and thus resist. Deetz (2008) describes this very well: “The very word evokes the sense of reclaimed autonomy of the oppressed working against domination. And its positive connotations are easy when the good guys are the weak guys and the bad guys powerful”

(p.387).

Resistance is not only a well-known, but also an important concept from a managerial point of view. Many of change initiatives fail and employees resistance to change is often mentioned as the reason of change failure (Michel, By and Burnes, 2013). That is one of the reasons why resistance has a negative tone to most people (Deetz, 2008). This negative tone is also what Dent and Goldberg (1999) describe in their study. Dent and Goldberg (1999) analyzed five management textbooks and concluded that the picture of resistance to change was rather negatively painted and predominantly one-sided, in favor for the change agent. In their conclusion, Dent and Goldberg (1999) called for a more positive view towards change recipients change attitudes and a less dominant change agent view towards resistance. Nowadays, an increasing number of studies take a multi-perspective view towards change. Choi (2012) argues, for example, that change initiatives fail because change leaders underestimate the role of change recipients whereas Ford, Ford and D’Amelio (2008) argue that change agents themselves have a big contribution to change resistance. Furthermore, several studies use a more positive view towards change resistance. Ford et al. (2008) argue that resistance of change could be conceived as a resource instead of an obstacle which is almost the opposite of the ‘overcoming resistance’

attitude at the time Dent and Goldberg (1999) conducted their research.

This positive attitude towards recipient’s behavior also comes to light in the emergence of the readiness to change concept. Readiness to change gets increasingly more attention in the change management literature (Vakola, 2013) and is by many scholars regarded as one of the primary success factors of change interventions (Stevens, 2013).

What becomes clear is that the current view of scientific articles towards resistance and change recipients is more positive and less one-sided than fifteen years ago. This paper tries

(8)

8 to determine if the view towards change resistance and readiness has changed in popular management books as well.

The interest in popular management books stems from the unique role these book play in the managerial world. Pagel and Westerfelhaus (2005) state that books which promote popular management theories have an important and influential function on the modern business landscape. Additionally, Suddaby and Trank (2013) argue that books are a unique form of knowledge creation and dissemination which journal articles cannot achieve because of their constrains. However, best seller popular management books are written by consultants, journalists and executives and not by management professors (Duncan, 2004). It is therefore questionable if the changes in scientific literature regarding change resistance and change readiness are reflected in popular management books as well.

The popular management books market grew enormously throughout the last 30 years and popular management books can often be found in ‘the best sellers’ list of several firms (Collins, 2013). One way to differentiate popular management books from textbooks is by looking at the target audience. Textbooks are written for students at universities whereas popular management books aim at management practitioners. The difference in audience makes it that both book types have different characteristics. Pagel and Westerfelhaus (2005) argued that popular books use texts that are concise, explained by concrete examples and have simple vocabulary. This differs from the classification of academic texts which are lengthy, indirect, abstract and use complex language (Pagel & Westerfelhaus, 2005).

Rhodes and Westwood (2008) in addition, observe that popular management texts are, in comparison to academic books, more inclined to use persuasive examples to explain their arguments and use ‘heroic success stories’ (p.180) to support their arguments. Furthermore, popular management texts do not seek to give empirical reality but rather want to change reality of the readers in order to increase their performance (Collins, 2013). Pagel and Westerfelhaus (2005) state that most popular management theories are written to improve organizational effectiveness. Examples of such theories are the balanced scorecard, management by walking about, and six sigma.

Popular management books have a strong relationship with management discourse and they represent and influence management practices (Lewis, Schmisseur, Stephens & Weir, 2006).This is not only due to the large numbers of popular management books sold, but also because the better comprehensiveness of these books compared with academic literature (Pagel & Westerfelhaus, 2005). According to Pagel & Westerfelhaus (2005), this is one of the reasons why academic style literature has not exercised a greater influence on management

(9)

9 practice and organizational policies. Furthermore, books allow for development of coherent and understandable thoughts which may become more incoherent and fragmented when these thoughts are split up into shorter articles (Suddaby & Trank, 2013).

Philips, Lawrence & Hardy (2004) state that it is important to know how and why certain content and fashions in popular management books, become institutionalized within the management discipline. A way of analyzing and understanding this institutionalization is by discourse analysis. Discourses are structured collections of meaningful texts which create sensemaking for its readers and give meaning to experiences and practices (Philips, Lawrence & Hardy, 2004). Discourse analysis therefore involves analysis of collections of texts, the ways they are made meaningful through their links to other texts, the ways in which they draw on different discourses, how and to whom they are disseminated, the methods of their production, and the manner in which they are received and consumed (Fairclough, 1992; Phillips & Hardy, 2002; van Dijk, 1997a,b; Derived from Philips, Lawrence & Hardy, (2004): p. 636). It is therefore a useful analysis for understanding social production of management fashions and organizational phenomena (Philips, Lawrence & Hardy, 2004).

Huczynski (2011) argues that ‘management fashions’ play an important role in textbook content. Benders and Veen (2001) describe management fashions as ‘The patterns of production and consumption of temporarily intensive management discourse, and the organizational changes induced by and associated with this discourse’ (p.49).

Many scholars have shown interest in how books transfer knowledge to future practitioners and how this relates to scientific knowledge (Stambaugh and Trank, 2010; Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Lynch and Boger, 1997; Huczynski, 2011; Philips, Lawrence and Hardy, 2004; Rousou & McCarthy, 2007; Suddaby & Trank, 2013; Duncan, 2004; Pagel &

Westerfelhaus, 2005; Collins, 2013). This paper tries to add to this discussion by examining how the concepts of change readiness and change resistance are addressed in popular management books. The goal is to discover the nature of popular management discourse that is giving advice for practitioners regarding resistance and readiness to change. This interest stems from the desire to understand how academic knowledge regarding change resistance and change readiness is reflected in popular management books. The main question which this paper tries to answer is:

How are the concepts of change resistance and change readiness portrayed in popular management books?

In order to determine what this conceptual portrayal is, the selected popular management books will be analyzed with the help of several ‘conceptual lenses’. Each of these lenses are

(10)

10 based upon scientific literature covering the readiness and resistance to change concepts.

The conceptual lenses will help to analyze the books from a content specific point of view.

The conceptual lenses are: (1) positive/negative view towards resistance or readiness (2) the change agent/recipient perspective towards resistance (3) the level of conceptual analysis by the books (individual, group, organizational) and (4) the tridimensional state (affective, cognitive, intentional/behavioral). More in depth information about these four lenses will be given in the next two chapters.

Next to giving the conceptualization of change resistance and change readiness as portrayed in management books, attention will be given to influential change authors which address readiness and resistance to change. Names like Lewin, Kotter and Armenakis had a major influence in the change discipline and are nowadays still influential in the scientific world. As explained before, it is questionable if these influential authors are cited in popular change management books as well because of their distinct characteristics of these books compared to scientific articles. Besides analysis of references to influential authors, an inductive analysis of the content in the change management books will take place to find out if there are patterns in the use of definitions, antecedents, theories, change stories or certain tools when change resistance and readiness are addressed. It is interesting to analyze if, and what change authors, antecedents, theories, change tools or change stories are recurrent in popular management literature. When a certain discourse is often mentioned, it is likely that this discourse is perceived as a reality by practitioners. The sub-question which is going to be answered with inductive research is: ‘Which definitions, influential authors, antecedents, theories, change tools and stories, regarding resistance and readiness to change, are often referred to in popular management books?’

Another interest of this research lies in the differences of resistance and readiness portrayal resistance between academic textbooks and popular change management books.

Stambaugh & Trank (2010) argue that textbooks ‘present a coherent, thematically integrated view of a discipline’ (p.664). This stands in stark contrast with popular management texts which, according to Collins (2013), do not seek to give empirical reality but rather seek to change the reality of the readers. It is therefore likely that popular management book discourses differ from the academic textbooks discourses. To examine the potential differences in the portrayal of change resistance and change readiness between textbooks and popular change management books, the results from Drewes (2014) study will be used to compare the different types of books. The same 4 theoretical lenses as used for the main research question will be used to compare the textbooks and popular management books.

Furthermore, the inductive research results from this study and Drewes’ (2014) study will be

(11)

11 compared. In the end, the comparison enables the answering of the following sub-question:

‘What are the differences regarding the view towards change resistance and change readiness as presented in popular management books, and academic textbooks?’

The results from this study create an insight about popular management discourses regarding resistance and readiness to change. Furthermore it adds to the discussion of the assimilation of scientific knowledge into popular management books and therefore, the research contributes to the discussion on the development of popular management concepts and their relation with academic concepts.

Practitioners will gain from this research as well. Rousseau (2005) argues that there is a research-practice gap in the managerial world, indicating that managers are not aware of the latest developments in the scientific world. This gap can be unfavorable for managers since management practices based on evidence increases the chance of using effective practices and contributes to decision making (Rousseau, 2005; Rousseau & McCarthy, 2007). The analysis of this research on readiness and resistance to change will give a good overview of the discourses and fashions in popular management books. This will help managers to identify relevant practices and help them to change and develop their own attitude towards change readiness and resistance.

2. Literature

This chapter elaborates on the scientific papers which address resistance and readiness to change. It gives an overview of the historical background of both concepts and will discuss some important developments in the scientific world regarding change readiness and change resistance. It is important to have an understanding of the current, scientific view towards resistance and readiness concepts because this will form the framework from which the popular management books will be analyzed.

Furthermore, this chapter will explain why, on which concepts and how the earlier mentioned conceptual lenses are addressed. Although some would argue that this should be allocated to the methods section, articles similar to this research (Marley, Stodnick & Heyl, 2013;

Hackley, 2003; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Graham, Kennavane & Wears, 2008; Hackley, 2003; Lewis et al., 2006; Lynch & Bogen, 1997), also tend to use parts from the introduction, literature review, methods and results as interchangeable.

(12)

12

2.1 Change resistance

The first known published reference to resistance to change was ‘Overcoming Resistance to Change’ by Coch and French (1948) (Bouckenooghe, 2010). It was however Kurt Lewin who actually developed the term ‘resistance to change’ (Michel, By & Burnes, 2013; Dent and Goldberg, 1999). Lewin (1951) takes a system perspective towards resistance to change.

According to him, resistance takes place within a system of roles, attitudes, behaviors, norms and other factors which can influence his well-known equilibrium point. Dent and Goldberg (1999) describe in their article ‘Challenging ‘’ Resistance to Change’’ how the perspective from Lewin (1951) changed over time. The systems view was replaced by a psychological view focused on individual resistance and how managers could and should overcome this (Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Ford et al., 2008). The assumption was that resistance is always inappropriate and harmful during a change process and supervisors should therefore try to overcome this resistance (Dent and Goldberg, 1999).

The picture by Dent and Goldberg (1999) painted towards change resistance, was that scholars and practitioners viewed resistance as a dominantly negative and one-sided concept in favor of the change agent. However, Dent and Goldberg (1999) also describe that at that time there were some developments towards a more positive perception towards change resistance. They advocated for a change in the mental model towards resistance which people had at that time: ‘We call for one final change in work on resistance to change.

The mental model, as is, is basically monolithic. Strategies for overcoming resistance to change are offered regardless of the change intended. Making changes effectively in organizations requires specific, targeted action. Labeling difficult problems as resistance to change only impedes the change effort’ (Dent and Goldberg, 1999, pp. 40).

Nowadays, the perspective from change recipients got more emphasized in recent studies (Ford et al., 2008; Oreg, 2006; Piderit, 2000; Oreg and Sverdlik, 2011) compared to 15 years ago. The previous mentioned articles plea for a more two-sides discussion about change resistance and that the change recipient perspective should get more emphasis (Ford et al., 2008; Oreg, 2006; Piderit, 2000; Oreg and Sverdlik, 2011). The change agent centric view presumes that resistance is ‘an accurate report by unbiased observers (change agents) of an objective reality (resistance by change recipients)’ (Ford et al., 2008: p.1). From this agent centric view, no consideration is given towards the possibility that resistance is not solely a recipient driven and created phenomenon. The recipient point of view on the other hand does include the influence a change agent has on resistance towards change. It recognizes the

(13)

13 resistance-creating nature of change agents’ behavior and takes a two-sided view towards resistance. Oreg & Sverdlik (2011) for example, conducted research on the relation between the change agent and the change recipient. Their findings suggest that change agents have a big influence on the amount of resistance during a change process (Oreg & Sverdlik, 2011). This aligns with the arguments of Ford et al. (2008) which state that change agents behavior plays a large role in the occurrence and strengthening of change resistance. Ford et al. (2008) advocate that change agents should take their own actions into account and that resistance is partially a result of their behavior. In line with this, Thomas and Hardy (2011) argue that resistance can be seen as a socially constructed concept in which the understanding about how different organizational members construct meaning is important and not the ‘for’ or ‘against’ change by either recipients or agents. Because influential scientific papers argue that resistance should be discussed not only from the change agent perspective but also from the change recipient perspective (Ford et al., 2008; Oreg, 2006;

Piderit, 2000; Oreg and Sverdlik, 2011), the change agent-recipient discussion will be used in this paper as a conceptual lens point through which the popular management books will be analyzed.

Another important development in the resistance to change discussion, is the tendency by scholars to take a more moderate or positive view towards resistance. The call for a more positive approach towards change is often described in scientific articles (Nord and Jermier, 1994; Piderit, 2000; Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Oreg, 2003; Ford et al., 2008). Perhaps the most well-known example is the Ford et al. (2008) study. Besides describing the earlier mentioned fact that resistance to change is a result from interaction between change agents and change recipients, Ford et al. (2008) argue that resistance has a positive and even necessary impact on change. According to Ford et al. (2008), advantages of resistance are its existence, engagement and strengthening values. With these assumptions, they regard resistance as a resource instead of a disruptive concept. Although a positive view of resistance might seem good, there is some criticism towards this positive approach. Thomas and Hardy (2011), argue that this approach grants change agents the authority to decide whether certain behavior is resistance or not. The change recipients might get placed into a position in which the change agent wants resistance and judge the recipients for their

‘resistance efforts’. Because of the plea by many scholars for a more positive- approach towards resistance (Nord and Jermier, 1994; Piderit, 2000; Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Oreg, 2003; Ford et al., 2008), the positive-negative view towards resistance will be used as a conceptual lens during the analysis of the popular change management books.

(14)

14 A problem with the resistance concept is the lack of agreement by practitioners on the definition or form it can have (Ford & Ford, 2010). What one manager would label as resistance, other managers might not (Ford & Ford, 2010). This difference in perception towards change resistance, also comes to light in scientific literature. Bouckenooghe (2010) found numerous definitions and explanations of resistance. Some authors argue that resistance is a set of intentions and actions which slows down, or hinders the change process and others scholars take a more positive approach and regard resistance as a learning enhancing concept (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Although the essence of most definitions differ, a constant that returns in the majority of definitions is the ‘intentional/behavioral’

component to resistance (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Bovey and Hede (2001) for example, describe resistance as ‘an individual’s intentions to engage in either supportive or resistant behavior towards organizational change’ (p.375). Coetsee (1999) contributes to the intentional/behavioral discussion by adding levels of resistance intensity which ranges from passive resistance to active resistance.

Piderit (2000) however, argues that the intentional/behavioral component does not encompass the full complexity of the resistance concept. Piderit (2000) therefore, expands the resistance discussion by perceiving resistance as an attitude and therefore she adds affective and cognitive components to the definition. ‘The affective component refers to a set of feelings about the change. The cognitive component refers to the opinion one has about the advantages and disadvantages, usefulness, and necessity, and about the knowledge required to handle the change. Finally, the intentional/ behavioral reactions refer to the actions already taken or which will be taken in the future for or against change’

(Bouckenooghe, 2010: p.501). This tridimensional state is used in many influential scientific articles (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011: Piderit, 2000: Oreg, 2003;

Rafferty, Jimmieson & Armenakis, 2013) and has become a standard manner of discussing change concepts. Therefore, the tridimensional state is going to be used as a conceptual lens to analyze resistance as portrayed in popular management books. This analysis is gives further insight on the way scientific ‘knowledge’ is transferred into management discourse.

Many studies did not only address resistance and its explicit reactions, but did also include the antecedents of change (Oreg et al., 2011). The focus with these studies lies on the reasons of resistance, rather than resistance itself. Oreg et al. (2011) made a distinction between five types of change antecedents namely: recipient characteristics, internal context, change process, perceived benefit/harm, and change content. These five types of resistance antecedents are used during this research to distinct the different resistance antecedents which are given in the selected popular management books.

(15)

15

2.2 Change readiness

Although change readiness was not a new concept at times of Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder’s (1993) influential ‘Creating Readiness for Organizational Change’ article, it was not regarded as a distinct concept from resistance (Armenakis et al., 1993). Armenakis et al.

(1993) argue that readiness was explained by most scholars as a prescription for reducing resistance to change. However, Armenakis et al. (1993) regard readiness more as a positive and proactive attitude of change agents, rather than a change resistance reducing concept.

A difference between both terms is the assumption that only reducing resistance does not necessarily increases readiness (Stevens, 2013). Many scholars and practitioners have adapted this view towards readiness and nowadays, change readiness is seen as one of the most important factors in the successfulness of change implementation (Stevens, 2013). Just as resistance, readiness will be analyzed by making a distinction between the positive- negative view. The negative view in this case is when readiness is perceived as a prescription for reducing resistance to change, and the positive view is when readiness is displayed as a positive and proactive attitude or behavior.

Bouckenooghe (2010) states that there is a strong consensus in the scientific world about the readiness for change concepts. The most commonly used definition is that from Armenakis et al. (1993), (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Armenakis et al. (1993) define readiness to change as:

‘The cognitive precursor to the behavior of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort.’ Readiness is ‘a mindset that exists among employees during the implementation of organizational changes. It comprises beliefs, attitudes and intentions of change target members regarding the need for and capability of implementing organizational change’ (p.

681). Armenakis et al. (1993) argue that their conceptualization of readiness aligns with Lewin’s (1951) unfreezing concept in which there is suggested that an active effort from change recipients is needed during this stage.

Unlike Bouckenooghe (2010), Stevens (2013) argues that there is confusion in the literature regarding how readiness is conceptualized. This confusion does not only stem from the high amount of terms similar to readiness (e.g. receptivity, openness, commitment, attitudes, belief, and support to change), but also from various theoretical and practical basis in which readiness is conceptualized (Stevens, 2013). Stevens (2013) summarizes the conceptual differences into 6 categories, each with distinct features of the readiness concept. The six categories are readiness as: (1) the change message (effort to generate positive and active change participation, (2) stages of change (progression of individuals and organizations

(16)

16 throughout the change process), (3) commitment to change (forces that bind individuals to change actions), (4) openness to change (broadly attitude towards a specific change or change in general), (5) capacity to change, (6) multidimensional state (potential combination of the 5 previously mentioned categories). Because of the ambiguity the concept of readiness is facing, Stevens (2013) argues that, rather continue discussing for one dominant change readiness conceptualization, readiness should be perceived as a continuous process throughout a change implementation.

Besides the readiness ambiguity as described by Stevens (2013), there is a lack of differentiation on the level of analysis (individual, group, organizational) by scholars (Vakola 2013; Rafferty et al., 2013). Vakola (2013) argues that the readiness concept can be made more comprehensible by making a distinction in levels of readiness to change which leaves less room for ambiguity.

The individual readiness level refers to the perception of individuals towards change (Vakola, 2013). George and Jones (2001) describe the importance of individual readiness as follows:

‘organizations only change and act through their members and even the most collective activities that take place in organizations are the result of some amalgamation of the activities of individual organizational members’ (p.420). Without individual readiness from change recipients, individual or organizational change cannot be effectively implemented (Vakola, 2013). An individual is ready to change when he/she has a proactive and positive attitude to change which may result into active change support (Vakola, 2013).

What this makes clear is that besides resistance, readiness can also be analyzed with the tridimensional state. Bouckenooghe, Devos and Van den Broek. (2009), argue that using this of this multifaceted state instead of a using a unifaceted state, gives more room for capturing the complexity of the change readiness concept. Furthermore, Rafferty et al. (2013) state that the distinction between the three tridimensional components is important and should be discussed explicitly. This is why not only resistance, but also readiness as displayed in popular management books will be analyzed from the tridimensional perspective.

The group readiness to change is based on ‘collective perceptions and beliefs that: change is needed, the organization has the ability to cope with change effectively, the group will benefit from change outcomes and the group has the capacity to cope with change requirements (Vakola, 2013 p.99). Group readiness emerges from the individual cognitive and affective change factors which become shared because of social interaction (Rafferty et al. 2013).

Therefore, the individual and group level are highly interrelated, not only from individual to

(17)

17 group level, but also from group to individual level (Rafferty et al., 2013; Vakola, 2013; Eby, Adams & Russel, 2000).

Vakola (2013) defines organizational readiness as ‘the existing mechanisms, processes or policies that can encourage or disrupt change such as organizational structure, culture, climate, leadership commitment etc.’ (p.101). Organizational readiness is therefore comparable with the systems perspective from Lewin (1951). Armenakis et al. (1993) relate it to Lewin’s concept of unfreezing. This implies that in order to successfully implement changes, the need for change and organizational change capabilities determine if the change implementation is going to be successful (Lewin, 1951; Vakola 2013).

Because of the plea from several scholars to use a multi-level approach when discussing readiness (and resistance) to change (Rafferty et al. 2013; Vakola, 2013; Eby et al., 2000;

Bouckenooghe, 2010) the three levels (individual, group, organization) will be used as a conceptual lens through which the popular management books content will be analyzed. This lens will not only be used for the readiness analysis, but also for the resistance analysis.

Although the resistance concept lacks a scientific plea for a multi-level approach, it is useful to analyze this concept from multiple levels as well. Bouckenooghe (2010) states that

‘adequate theories of change should incorporate multiple levels and explain relationships among these levels’ (p.508). The resistance conceptualization gives room to analyze whether multiple levels have been incorporated because there is a specific distinction between levels (recall the psychological/ individual and systems/organizational discussion from the previous paragraph). Furthermore, by analyzing both the concepts of readiness and resistance to change from a multi-level perspective, a comparison between the two concepts can be made.

Finally, just like with resistance to change, the antecedents of readiness as portrayed in the popular management books will be analyzed. Rafferty et al. (2013) categorize change antecedents into three broad categories namely: external organizational pressures (comparable with Oreg et al.’s (2011) change content), internal context enables (combination of Oreg et al.’s (2011) internal context and change process), and personnel/ group composition characteristics (comparable with Oreg et al.’s (2011) changer recipient characteristics). Since the categorization from Rafferty et al. (2013) is rather similar to that of Oreg et al.’s (2011), the categorization of Oreg et al.’s (2011) will be used to categorize the change readiness antecedents. This because the comparison between readiness and resistance antecedents is easier and more comprehensible when the categorizations are the same.

(18)

18

2.3 Change attitudes

The previous two paragraphs made clear that the two concepts of readiness and resistance to change have distinct characteristics. However, there is a strong overlap as well. For example: readiness originated out of the resistance concept, both concepts can be analyzed from multiple levels, both address the tridimensional state and most importantly; both are attitudes towards change (Bouckenooghe, 2010).

Bouckenooghe (2010) argues that the concept of attitudes towards change is used to reflect the variety in perceptions and reactions towards change. Besides resistance and readiness, there are several other change attitudes as well. Commitment to change, openness to change, coping with change, cynicism to change, acceptance to change and adjustment to change are some examples of other change attitudes. Bouckenooghe (2010) explains that because of a large amount of different definitions, concepts and descriptions, the attitudes to change overlap each other to some extent, and can be used interchangeably.

It is important for this study to realize that there is an possibility of overlap and interchangeability between both concepts and therefore, the analyzed text should be examined carefully for possible overlap or interchangeability of attitude concepts. That is why not only the concepts of readiness and resistance will be searched for in the popular management books, but also other attitudes to change like commitment to change, openness to change, coping with change, cynicism to change, acceptance to change and adjustment to change will be taken into account. There will be no structured analysis of the previously named attitudes towards change, but during the inductive part of this research the overlap between readiness, resistance and other change attitudes will be taken into account.

3. Methodology

To identify the popular management book portrayal of resistance and readiness to change, a representative sample of popular management books has been analyzed. This book analysis has been conducted in the form of a semi-structured literature review. The label of semi- structured literature review has been created for this research since scientific articles which also analyze (text)books (Marley et al., 2013; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Graham et al., 2008;

Hackley, 2003; Lewis et al., 2006; Lynch & Bogen, 1997; Stambaugh & Trank, 2010), did not label their used method and give the reader only marginal directions or explanations on how their book analysis/ literature review has been conducted.

(19)

19 There is however, a similarity between the earlier mentioned articles. All of them address the process and manner in which the analyzed books were selected. This article does the same by addressing the selection method in the first paragraph of this chapter. The second paragraph will address the way, and on which scientific grounds the books have been analyzed.

3.1 Selection

The selected books which are going to be analyzed are found and selected by making use of the site ‘amazon.co.uk’. ‘Organizational change’ and ‘change management’ were used as search terms to find change management literature. Because the focus of this research is popular management books, some filters have been used to identify the most relevant literature which has the highest degree of influence in managerial practice. Just like Lewis, Passmore & Cantore (2006) do, the books have been filtered on (1) number of sales (2) books published after a certain date; for this research 1-1-2005 and (3) books in the management category. In total, 1348 titles have been identified through this search.

Not all of the identified books were useful for this research. Some were textbooks, some lacked content about resistance and readiness to change, and some of the books could not be acquired. Eventually, a total of 20 books have been selected from these 1348 titles.

These 20 books were all in the top 119 (none of them ranked lower than 119) of popular management books from amazon.co.uk. The complete list of books is displayed in table 1.

Reviewed books

1. Bridges, W. (2009). Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change.

London/Boston. Nicholas Brealey Publishing

2. Cameron, K.S. & Quinn, R.E. (2011). Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture:

Based on the Competing Values Framework. San Francisco. John Wiley & Sons 3. Cameron, E. & Green, M. (2012). Making Sense of Change Management: A complete

guide to the models, tools and techniques of organizational change. London: Kogan Page Limited

4. Green, M. (2007). Change Management Masterclass: A Step by Step Guide to Successful Change Management. London & Philadelphia: Kogan Page

5. Heath, C. & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard.

New York: Broadway Books

6. Holman, P. Devane, T. Cady, S. (2007). The Change Handbook: The Definitive Resource on Today’s Best Methods for Engaging Whole Systems. San Francisco:

Berrett-Koehler Publishers

7. Jackson, P.Z. & McKergow, M. (2006). The Solutions Focus: Making Coaching &

Change SIMPLE. Boston: Nicholas Brealey International

8. Jones, B.B. & Brazzel, M. (2006). The NTL Handbook of Organizational Development and Change: Principles, Practices, and Perspectives. San Francisco: Pfeiffer

(20)

20 9. Lewis, S. Passmore, J. &Cantore, S. (2008). Appreciative Inquiry for Change

Management: Using AI to Facilitate Organizational Development. London &

Philadelphia: Kogan Page

10. Lewis, L.K. (2011). Organizational Change: Creating Change Through Strategic Communication. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell

11. Partridge, L. (2007). Managing Change: Learning Made Simple. Oxford: Elsevier 12. Paton, R.A., McCalman, J. (2008). Change Management: A guide to Effective

Implementation. London. SAGE Publications Ltd

13. Rodgers, C. (2006). Informal coalitions: Mastering the hidden dynamics of organizational change. Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan

14. Rothwell, W.J. Stavros, J.M. Sullivan, R.L. Sullivan, A. (2009). Practicing

Organizational Development: A guide for leading change. San Francisco: Pfeiffer 15. Salerno, A. & Brock, L. (2008) The Change Cycle: How People Can Survive and Thrive

in Organizational Change: A Practical Guide to Navigating the 6 Stages of Change.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers

16. Schabracq, M. J. (2007). Changing Organizational Culture: The Change Agent’s Guidebook. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons

17. Tidd, J. Bessant, J. Pavitt, K. (2005). Managing Innovation: Integrating Techological, Market and Organizational Change. Chichester. John Wiley & Sons

18. Thames, C.R. & Webster, D.W. (2009). Chasing Change: Building Organizational Capacity in a Turbulent Environment. New Jersey. John Wiley & Sons

19. Turner, J.R. (2008). The Handbook of Project Based Management: Leading strategic change in organizations. McGraw Hill

20. Wash, M. (2009). 54 approaches to managing change at work: How to Thrive in a Constantly Changing World. Massachusetts, USA: Global Management Enterprises Table 1: list of analyzed books

3.2 Analysis

To determine in what way the concepts of readiness and resistance to change are portrayed in selected books, the analysis of the books is conducted according to the discussed scientific literature. The analysis consists of three different parts namely: (1) concept information (2) conceptual lenses and (3) inductive research. All of the 20 selected books have been analyzed according to these three different parts and these individual analysis forms have been merged into one overall analysis from. An example of an individual book analysis can be found in appendix 1. The combined results from the individual book analysis have been put into one overall table (see appendix 2).

3.2.1 Concept information

The first part of the analysis is ‘concept information’. This is the data which can directly be obtained from the books, without analyzing it with scientific knowledge. First of all, the presence of both central concepts has been searched for. This is because some of the books do address resistance, but do not discuss readiness. It could be that there are differences regarding the portrayal of change readiness and resistance in books which do, or do not discuss readiness. Besides looking for the central concepts, there has been searched for

(21)

21 other change attitudes as well. This because of the potential overlap or interchangeability between attitudes to change. A concept is perceived as being discussed when at least some explanation of the concept is given in the book. Some books did mention ‘readiness’ but did not give further information which made an in depth analysis impossible. The results from the

‘presence of concepts analysis’ from this study have been compared with Drewes (2014) study. Secondly, the relative amount of pages which are dedicated to the main two concepts have been calculated. It is common to assess this degree of topic-coverage when books are analyzed (Stambaugh & Trank, 2010; Marley et al., 2013; Graham et al., 2008) so that possible distinctions between books can be identified. Furthermore, it gives the opportunity to make a comparison between textbooks and popular management books. Four sub-groups have been made (<1%, 1-4%, 5-10%, >10%) which indicate what percentage of the book addresses resistance or readiness to change. This way, the books can be potentially differentiated based upon their concept coverage. Thirdly, the concept definitions of readiness and resistance have been derived from the books. In the results chapter, a comparison between the definitions has been conducted in order to find out if there is a pattern. Finally, the antecedents for change readiness and change resistance have been derived from the books and categorized with Oreg et al. (2011) antecedent distinction. The antecedents have been analyzed in order to determine whether there are patterns in the books and it enabled comparison between textbooks and popular management books. Table 2 gives an overview of the concept information.

Concept information

Presence of resistance and readiness - Resistance to change:

- Readiness for change:

- Commitment to change:

- Cynicism to change:

- Support for change:

- Willingness to change:

- Openness to change

Attention paid to concept: Resistance:

<1%:

1-4%:

5-10%:

>10%:

Readiness:

<1%:

1-4%:

5-10%:

>10%:

(22)

22

Definition: Resistance:

Readiness:

Readiness and resistance antecedents: 1. Recipient characteristics:

2. Internal context:

3. Change process:

4. Perceived benefit/harm:

5. Change content:

Table 2: Concept information

3.2.2 Conceptual lenses analysis

As explained in the introduction and in the literature chapter, four conceptual lenses based on scientific literature has been used to analyze the selected books. The analysis of these conceptual lenses helps to get an insight of the conceptual portrayal of resistance and readiness to change. Furthermore, since Drewes (2014) used the same lenses, it gives room to compare the textbook and popular management book portrayals of resistance and readiness. The conceptual lenses are: (1) positive/negative view towards resistance or readiness (2) the change agent/recipient perspective towards resistance (3) the level of conceptual analysis by the books (individual, group, organizational) and (4) the tridimensional state (affective, cognitive, intentional/behavioral).

The definitions, explanations, antecedents and other relevant info from the popular management books about the readiness and resistance to change concepts have been used as input to categorize the different conceptual lenses. For example, the sentence ‘Resistance can be understood as feedback or expression of a differing point of view. Individuals in systems that resist do so for very good reasons, all of which are legitimate and necessary.’

(Jones & Brazzel, 2006: 122) gives useful information. The level of analysis becomes clear (individual), the recipient point of view is addressed and it stresses positive aspects of resistance. All of the relevant sentences, paragraphs or chapters dealing with resistance or readiness will be analyzed in the same fashion.

It is also possible that multiple conceptual levels, views, or tridimensional states are addressed. This will be included in the analysis. Next to the identification of the content level and tridimensional state, it has been analyzed whether the books explicitly mention the conceptual level or state. This gives insight into the knowledge translation from scientific papers to management discourse since several scholars made a plea to explicitly differentiate between concept levels and concept states.

(23)

23 Table 3 gives the instrument which is used for analyzing the books on the basis of the four conceptual lenses.

Four conceptual lenses

(1) Positive-negative focus towards the concepts:

Resistance:

- Positive - Negative - Both - Neutral Readiness:

- Positive - Negative - Both - Neutral (2) Change agent/recipient perspective

towards resistance

- Agent’s perspective - Recipient’s perspective - Both perspectives (3) Level of conceptual analysis: Resistance:

- Individual level - Group level - Organizational level - Multiple levels - Not clear

Readiness:

1. Individual level 2. Group level 3. Organizational level 4. Multiple levels 5. Not clear (4) Tridimensional state: Resistance:

- Affective - Cognitive

- Intentional/behavioral - Multiple states Readiness:

- Affective - Cognitive

- Intentional/behavioral - Multiple state

Table 3: four conceptual lenses

3.2.3 Inductive research

The third and final part of the books analysis is the inductive research. This type of analysis is needed to partially answer the sub question ‘‘Which definitions, influential authors, antecedents, theories, change tools and stories, regarding resistance and readiness to change, are often referred to in popular management books?’’. To make the inductive

(24)

24 research as structured as possible, all the potential often referred authors, stories or change concepts have been written down during the individual book analysis. This resulted in a list of different possible findings to discover patterns in the popular change literature. When a author, story or change concept related to change resistance and change readiness, was referred to in at least two different books, the whole selection of books was scanned again to see if more books used the same influential authors, antecedents, theories, change tools or stories.

4. Results

The structure of the chapter follows the three parts which were described in the methods chapter, namely: concept information, the four conceptual lenses and the inductive research.

For the sake of comprehensibility and clear structure, the results, interpretation and comparison with Drewes (2014) study from each of the analyzed parts will be presented separately instead of an overall paragraph with results, interpretation and comparison.

Furthermore, both of sub-questions will be (indirectly) answered in this results chapter.

Before the results will be discussed however, it is important to highlight a finding which is derived from the inductive research. It turned out to be that a differentiation could be made on the overall content of the books. Four books give an overview of the change literature and cover a great deal of different change concepts, theories, and content. Three books could be described as ‘popular’, meaning that the books used their own definitions, concepts and explanations which are partially based on change literature but where the scientific source is absent or untraceable. These self-made definitions, concepts and explanations are often ‘hip’, metaphorical and easy to grasp. A good example of this phenomenon is the book from Heath and Heath (2010) which use an elephant as metaphor for change and self-made concepts are used for guiding this ‘elephant’ in the right direction. The 13 remaining books are more focused on one change subject like cultural change, or leading strategic change.

This makes that the selection of 20 books can be divided into three groups namely:

‘overview’, ‘popular’ and ‘subject specific’ popular management books. These three groups have been taken into account throughout the process of book analysis. However, during the following results discussion, there will be no explicit distinction between the three groups unless a certain pattern is discovered which is worth mentioning. This because of the number and distribution of books in the three groups are deemed to be inadequate for making a good comparison.

(25)

25

4.1 Concept information

4.1.1 Search terms and relative attention paid to concept

Results

All of the 20 books discuss resistance to some extent. Although readiness gets mentioned in 11 books, only 8 books give specific concept information which could be used to analyze. All of the 4 ‘overview’ books discuss readiness and none of the ‘popular’ books discuss it.

Furthermore, commitment to change gets mentioned in 5 books, from which 4 times in the

‘overview’ books. To conclude, support for change, willingness to change and cynicism to change each get mentioned once. Table 4 gives an overview of the results.

Presence of search terms

- Resistance to change: all of them - Readiness for change: 8

- Commitment to change: 5 - Cynicism to change: 1 - Support for change: 1 - Willingness to change: 1

Table 4: results of ‘presence of search terms’ analysis

Out of the 20 books which addressed resistance, 13 books pay 1-4% attention to the this change concept. Furthermore, 3 books discuss resistance in less than 1% of their pages, and 3 books pay 5-10% attention to the resistance concept. There is 1 book which pays more than 10% of its pages to resistance, but this whole book is about resistance which makes this finding incomparable with the rest.

Readiness for change has a lower average amount of concept-addressed pages than resistance. Out of the 8 books, 6 discussed readiness in less than 1% of their pages. The other 2 books discuss it in 1-4% of their books which makes it clear that even when readiness is discussed, it gets less explanation than resistance to change. Table 5 gives an overview of the results.

Attention paid to concept

Resistance to change (20 in total) Relative number of pages:

<1%: 3 1-4%: 13 5-10%: 3

>10%: 1

Readiness for change (8 in total) Relative number of pages:

<1%: 6 1-4%: 2 Table 5: results of ‘attention paid to concept’ analysis

(26)

26 Comparison

The presence of the readiness and resistance results are comparable with Drewes (2014) textbook analysis in which 18 out of 19 books discuss resistance, and 10 out of 19 books discuss readiness for change. In Drewes (2014) study however, other change attitudes such as willingness to change, commitment to change, cynicism for change, and openness for change are more frequently addressed than in the popular management books.

The average amount of pages addressed to the two main concepts is similar to Drewes’

(2014) results. In her research, less attention was paid to readiness (average of 1.48%) than to resistance (average of 3.16%) as well.

Interpretation

Even though scientific articles (Stevens, 2013; Vakola, 2013; Rafferty et al., 2013) claim that readiness is one of the most important change implementation success factors, resistance is more dominantly represented in popular management books and textbooks. The fact that not only fewer (text)books address readiness, but also the fact that the relative attention paid to readiness is lower than resistance could be an indication that resistance is perceived as a more important or appealing concept than readiness to change.

Considering the type of books which address different change attitudes, it makes sense that the four ‘overview’ books discuss resistance, readiness and commitment because they are giving an overview of change literature. The same goes for the fact that ‘popular’ books do not discuss readiness. They use their own terms which are somewhat similar to readiness, but their terms become unanalyzable due to their abstract level of explanation. An example is the term: ‘direct the rider’ (Heath and Heath, 2010), which is a ‘self-made’ concept with some similarities with the readiness concept but is not analyzable in the same way because of its abstract formulations. The notion that overview books tend to discuss more concepts besides resistance, could be also the explanation for the fact that in Drewes (2014) study concepts other than resistance and readiness get mentioned more frequently. This because of the nature and purpose of textbooks, which often are written to give an overview of scientific literature (Stambaugh & Trank, 2010).

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Thus, my platform-specific case studies make use of different methodological approaches, taking the research outlook from controversy analysis and tools and methods developed

I am convinced that the restitution of “rescued” goods is not a high priority for the Israeli government. 8 Yet the subject of restitution cannot be avoided indefinitely. In

maldaisemans bha belats, jm- maitty stwen, bha pugeitty wissay is stasma, schis kelchs äst sta nawans testamentan, an maian kraugen, kha perwans palletan werst, pray att werpsannan

An inquiry into the level of analysis in both corpora indicates that popular management books, which discuss resistance from either both the individual and organizational

Besides, 14 respondents argue that no clear definition of a results-oriented culture is communicated and that everyone has its own interpretation of it. All of

We have seen that the M&amp;C consultants tend to realize change mainly in a top down, planned way with a focus on the structure of the organization, although every consultant

Inconsistent with this reasoning, when a customer does not adopt any value-adding service this customer embodies a higher lifetime value to a company compared to a customer adopting

Inconsistent with this reasoning, when a customer does not adopt any value-adding service this customer embodies a higher lifetime value to a company compared to a customer adopting