A Multi-level Analysis of User Resistance: An
Interpretive Field Study at a Financial Services
Company.
Master thesis Business Administration: Business & ICT (EBM865A20)
Abstract
To stay competitive in today’s economy it is vital for organizations to innovate frequently. A popular example of an innovation is implementing a new Information System (IS) or Information Technology (IT). Past research however, has indicated that more than 70% of all IS/IT implementation projects fail. The main reason for these failures, according to the literature, is user resistance. Although this phenomenon has been extensively examined in the literature only few studies have provided insights for practice. This study attempts to contribute to the gap between theory and practice by providing the management with a model to better understand user resistance. The model provides a multi-level approach combining antecedents, resistance behavior, organizational level, and management strategies to user resistance. The model is tested in a case study at a large Dutch financial services company, where a Transaction Processing System (TPS) was being implemented. From this study can be concluded that the model provides both theoretical and managerial implications; the model provides a better understanding of user resistance by connecting theory and practice. The management could use this model to choose the right management strategy to prevent or to minimize the antecedents to user resistance behavior.
Keywords: user resistance, antecedents to resistance, resistance behaviors,
management strategies to resistance, transaction processing systems
Name:
André Ruud Dijkstra S1923455
Ruud.dijkstra@gmail.com University of Groningen,
Faculty of Economics & Business
Supervisors:
1. Dr. E.T.K. Lim
e.t.k.lim@rug.nl
2. Prof. dr. E.W. Berghout
1. Introduction
Since the second half of the 20th century the market is characterized by fundamental and accelerated changes (McKeown & Philip, 2003). According Baden-Fuller & Volberda (2001) this is due to the globalization of the market, the rising use of IT and the creation of new organizational forms and networks. To stay competitive in the “new” global market organizations must frequently innovate (Klaus & Blanton, 2010). A popular example of such an innovation is implementing a new IS/IT into the organization. A new IS/IT allows organizations to adapt to the new market situations and has the potential to increase their competitiveness and productivity (Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006). However successful implementation of IS/IT remains challenging (Joshi, 1991; Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006). Kim (2011) found that more than 70% of IS/IT implementation projects fail and even up to 90% of all implementations fail to meet all objectives. Several researchers in IS/IT literature (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005,2012; Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009; Kim, 2011) identified that user resistance is the main reasons for these high failure rates. And due to the accelerated digitalization and a higher reliability on IS/IT in last few decades, successful implementation is becoming more and more important for the survival of an organization.
Many researchers (Markus, 1983; Joshi, 1991; Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Martinko et al., 1996; Lapointe & Rivard, 2005, 2012) have tried to open the black box of user resistance. All these researchers proposed models and explanations on how and why resistance develops/occurs, however all explain resistance after implementation and all at different levels of the organization; individual level (Joshi, 1991; Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Martinko et al., 1996; Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009) and group level (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005; Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006). It can be concluded that there is a lack of studies on how managers/implementers must respond to user resistance, before and during the implementation (Lapointe & Rivard, 2012).
1. What are the causes of user resistance towards a new IS/IT implementation at various levels of an organization and what are the behavioral manifestations of these resistances?
2. How can management prevent the cause of use resistance and manage these resistances before and after they have manifested?
To find answers on these questions this study starts with a literature review. In this literature review past research and their contribution to the field of user resistance from both a managerial and a psychological perspective is examined. After the literature review on user resistance the data & methodology is explained. In this section also the case study of a transaction processing system (TPS) implementation at a Dutch financial services company is discussed. The research results are presented after the data and methodology section. This paper ends with conclusions and limitations of the study.
2. Literature review
Resistance (to change)
In the second half of the 20th century, in particular the 70s, 80s and 90s, resistance behavior to change and its causes were a hot topic in organizational management (OM) literature (Shang, 2012). Before it became a popular topic in OM literature, it had been a well-studied topic in psychology literature (Kim, 2011). From a psychology point of view resistance to change is defined as an individual’s tendency to avoid making changes, to generally devalue change and to be averse to change across diverse contexts and types of change (Oreg, 2003). In short, individuals try to maintain their status quo and persistently avoid changes. This corresponds to the definition of resistance to change from the managerial perspective (Kim, 2011).
change. Due to the relation between change and resistance, accepting resistance can be seen as normal behavior at any organizational level (individual. group or organizational level) (Hirschheim & Newman, 1988). According to Doppler (2004) accepting resistance as normal behavior causes many change implementers to ignore user resistance. This may lead to future problems. Therefore it is important to acknowledge resistance to change because minor resistance can reduce the speed of the change, while major resistance can go as far as abandonment of management’s plans (Davidson, 1994). It is important to understand and explain resistance to change because better theories or models of resistance leads to better implementation strategies and desired implementation outcomes (Markus, 1983; Joshi, 1991; Kwakh & Kim, 2008). Because minimizing user resistance the speed of the project might go as planned, and therefore a higher chance of success (Klaus & Blanton, 2010).
User resistance
According to Shang (2012) resistance to change shows several similar resistance patterns with user resistance to IS/IT implementation. But resistance to change cannot fully clarify user resistance to IS/IT because in user resistance there is an interaction between the system being implemented and the context of use (Markus, 1983; Lapointe & Rivard, 2005; Klaus & Blanton, 2010; Shang, 2012). Kim & Kankanhalli (2009) define user resistance as the opposition of a user to change associated with a new IS/IT implementation. However, several researchers (Markus, 1983; Hirschheim & Newman, 1988; Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Lapointe & Rivard, 2005, 2012) not agree with this definition, they embraced the view that user resistance is neither good nor bad. According to these researchers it can be either functional or dysfunctional. It can be functional when users show existing flaws in technical system design or in system features and dysfunctional when the resistance slows or prevents an adoption of an IS/IT that could benefit the firm. Implementers, who bear the responsibility for a successful implementation, must take this into account (Lapointe & Rivard, 2012). Due to the focus of this study only the dysfunctional view on user resistance is apparant.
Martinko et al., 1996). From 2005 until today more studies are focused on explaining user resistance towards IS/IT implementation; user resistance due to workarounds (Ferneley & Sobreperez, 2006), switching costs as critical variable in resistance towards IS/IT (Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009; Kim, 2011), the use of psychological contract theory to explain user resistance (Klaus & Blanton, 2010), and cynicism as resistance behavior (Selander & Henfridsson, 2012). But after 30 years of user resistance research it still is not clear for both theory as practice how to prevent resistance before it has manifested and how to act when it has occurred. Most studies try to explain how and why user resistances occur instead of how to prevent and manage it (Lapointe & Rivard, 2012). User resistance still remains an unknown phenomenon; it cannot be simply explained and is often presented as a normal reaction to changes in IS/IT (Hirschheim & Newman, 1988).
Causes of resistance
positions and working habits (Lapointe & Rivard, 2012) and the system and/or the system advocates, refers to as implementers or change agents who introduced the system. The perceived threats are therefore important for implementers of IS/IT because these can be early signs for resistance behavior.
Meissonier & Houzé (2010) stated that a focus on pre-implementation phases is important for implementers because in these phases they need to be alert on early signs of user resistance that can lead to problems later on in the project. However resistance can occur at various stages of the implementation life cycle (Hirschheim & Newman, 1988), even nine months after implementation (Klaus & Blanton, 2010). It is not uncommon for resistance to lie dormant throughout the analysis and implementation phase (Hirschheim & Newman, 1988).
Over the years researchers found several causes for user resistance (Hirschheim & Newman, 1988; Jiang et al, 2000; Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009; Klaus & Blanton, 2010; Shang, 2012), however till so far none of them has attempted to group the causes despite the importance of it. To get a good overview of these antecedents the distribution of Markus (1983) is used. According to Markus resistance develops in three directions; system-oriented, people-oriented and interaction-oriented. The system-oriented direction states that resistance occurs due to the systems’ characteristics or to the design of the new IS/IT, which is comparable with the object of resistance from Lapointe & Rivard. The people-oriented direction states that the resistance behavior is created due to the internal factors to users as individuals or groups. Finally the interaction-oriented direction describes the perceived losses due to the new IS/IT by causality of the interaction of the system and the users (Jiang et al, 2000).
System-oriented
that organizational validity is one of the main causes of resistance. A mismatch can also arise when the communication is lacking between the designer/implementers and the managers of the organization (Hirschheim & Newman, 1988). It has been acknowledged by many researchers (Rose, 1969; Powers & Dickson, 1973; Hedberg & Mumford, 1975; Bjorn-Andersen & Hedberg, 1978; Newman & Rosenberg, 1985;) that implementers have difficulties interacting with users. This lack of communication often results in poor technical quality (Schneidermann, 1981; Kling & Scacchi, 1984; Steinmuller, 1984). The poor technical quality might cause lack of functionality, a unreliable, a unfriendly or a slow IS. So users will resist when the technical quality is perceived as low (Hirschheim & Newman, 1988).
People-oriented
First of all it can be stated that people/users don’t want to change at all, they want to maintain their status quo (Ginzberg & Reilley, 1957). But due to the new IS/IT possibly new processes are required, which might involve requiring new skills. This can cause changes in the job content (Ginzberg, 1975). When users perceive negative changes in their job content they will likely show resistance behavior. A new IS/IT can also cause job uncertainty/insecurity (De Jager, 1994). The new system might cause losing their job, being transferred to another department and the fear not able to acquire the new required skills (Sanders, 1974). Another cause of resistance is a hot topic in IS/IT literature; top management support (Young & Jordan, 2008). Top management need to support and encourage the change, if they don’t, employees are likely not to use it (Hirschheim & Newman, 1988). Some researchers also highlight the importance of involving users in the implementation of the IS/IT (Iver & Olson, 1984). When users are involved in the implementation they produce commitment, they gain knowledge of the change and enhance the systems quality (Hirschheim & Newman, 1988). This way training or education is not needed, which is also mentioned as a cause of resistance (Lucas, 1973; Klaus & Blanton, 2010). According to Lucas (1973) training on how to use the system and on the facilities available are important to users to actually use the system instead of avoiding it.
Interaction-oriented
power are likely to support it. Kim & Kankanhalli (2009) calls these switching costs. Switching costs is defined as the costs an users need to endure when switching from the status quo to the new system. When its negative they are costs, however when its positive they are called switching benefits (Kim, 2011).
Table 1 provides an overview of all the antecedents mentioned above and their definitions or descriptions.
Resistance behavior
Resistance behavior is set as the core element in resistance to IT (Lapointe & Rivard, 2012). Users can express resistance to IT in several ways; through apathy, passive resistance, active resistance and eventually aggressive resistance (Coetsee, 1999; Lapointe & Rivard, 2005). Some behaviors to IT aren’t harmful like being inactive or lacking interest (Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Martinko et al., 1996; Lapointe & Rivard, 2012) but others may lower productivity, affect the quality of work, raise production costs, or even lower safety levels (Odiorne, 1981; Judson, 1991; Hultman, 1995; Shang, 2012). For this study we define resistance behavior as follows; a set of behaviors enacted by users to manifest some discontent with the implementation of a new IT (Lapointe & Rivard 2005, 2012).
Apathy
Coetsee (1999) calls this the neutral or transition zone; people know about the changes but their perception and attitudes towards the new IS/IT is neutral. He also states that during this stage the choice is been made to resist or accept the new system or technology. According to Shang (2012) users try to show their discontent with the new system by showing no interest in the new IS/IT. Like mentioned earlier this stage of resistance has several behaviors; being apathetic, being inactive and lacking interest in the project activities (Lapointe & Rivard, 2012).
Passive resistance
the existence of negative perceptions and attitudes (Coetsee, 1999). This type of resistance is still rather mild; doing as little as possible or not cooperating (Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009), delay tactics (Keen, 1981; Marakas & Hornik, 1996), making excuses (Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Martinko et al., 1996; Dos Santos & Sussman, 2000), denying the need for change (Kossek et al., 1994; Munkvold, 1999; Day, 2000; Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009), avoid the system (Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Martinko et al., 1996; Day, 2000; Enns et al., 2003) and humor (Kossek et al., 1994).
Active resistance
A more severe form of user resistance is active resistance. During this stage of resistance users try to avoid or eliminate all contact with the system (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005). This type of resistance is strong however does not intend to destructive behavior (Coetsee, 1999). This stage starts with still rather mild resistance; complaining about the system/project (Lapointe & Rivard, 2012), reducing the commitment to the organization (Moreno, 1999), refusing to engage in joint problem solving (Day, 2000; Lapointe & Rivard, 2012), voicing opposing views regarding the system/project (Kossek et al., 1994), pretending to comply (Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Day, 2000; Dos Santos & Sussman, 2000), and asking others to intervene (Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Wright & Lund, 1998). In later stages of the active resistance it is getting harsher; attacking the credibility of the implementers or the project (Kossek et al., 1994; Martinko et al., 1996), forming coalitions (Markus, 1983; Joshi, 1991; Martinko et al., 1996; Moreno, 1999), showing overt blocking behavior (Martinko et al., 1996), non utilization (Zuboff, 1982; Markus, 1983; Joshi, 1991; Kossek et al., 1994; Martinko et al., 1996) and eventually withdrawing or leaving the business unit/organization (Moreno, 1999; Lapointe & Rivard, 2012).
Aggressive resistance
Rivard, 2012), sabotage (Keen, 1981; Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Moreno, 1999; Day, 2000; Dos Santos & Sussman, 2000) and violence and destructive behaviors (Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Martinko et al., 1996; Lapointe & Rivard, 2012). According to Coetsee (1999) aggressive resistance even can result in killing.
As you noticed a lot of research has been done on resistance behavior and on the causes of resistance, however the question remains: “What type of antecedents leads to what kind of resistance behavior”? There is still a gap in the user resistance literature on this topic. This gap is crucial because when the management or implementers spot resistance behavior they need to know what the causes are for these behaviors so that they can spot the problem and react properly. Management therefore must foresee and neutralize any form of resistance that may occur (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). This is easier said than done, due to the fact the antecedents and behaviors can vary per user. This makes it hard to use one method to manage all users. Take for instance system-oriented antecedents it can go as far as aggressive behavior. A good example of this is when the technical quality of the IS/IT is perceived as low; slow response, unreliable or too complex, users need to do more work and stay longer at work to do the same job before the new IS/IT. The new system is therefore more time consuming, which leads to a higher level of resistance up to aggressive behavior (Zuboff, 1982; Klaus & Blanton, 2010).
Levels of user resistance
Several models have been proposed trying to explain user resistance, however according to Lapointe & Rivard (2005) most of these models focus on an individual level (Joshi, 1991; Marakas & Hornik, 1996; Martinko et al., 1996). Empirical studies have shown that user resistance is higher at group level than at individual level, therefore managing user resistance at group level is more important (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005). Markus (1983) draws the same conclusion, she notes that at group level user resistance is more socio-political whereas at the individual level it is more psychological. She also states that group level is more important because it can severely affect the overall implementation process (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005).
Causes of resistance, the perceived threats, change over time from individual to group level and this affects resistance behavior; the behaviors become more aggressive (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005). Lapointe & Rivard (2005) found that at individual level the resistance behaviors are rather mild; these behaviors varied from apathy to mild active resistance. However during the later stages of the implementation, when the individual behaviors are converged in group behavior, the resistance behavior started getting more aggressive; making coalitions and even making threats or proposing boycotts. It is important for the management to spot these behaviors as soon as possible, while it is still manageable (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005). The early stage of an implementation according to Tyre & Orlikowski (1994) is a window of opportunity, because in these stages modifications or improvements to the system are easily achieved. However due to the dispersion and the non-uniformity of the individual behaviors it is hard to manage (Lapointe & Rivard, 2005).
Strategies to manage resistance
organizational change strategy (Dunphy & Stace, 1988, 1993). The model assesses which type of strategy could be used best in a certain scale of change. The scale of changes vary from fine tuning (small changes to achieve a better fit between organizations’ strategies, structure, people and process), to incremental adjustment (incrementally change (so not radically) or add modifications to the systems to corporate business strategies, structures and management processes), to modular transformation (major realignment of one or more departments/divisions) and to finally corporate transformation (radical shift in business strategy, and revolutionary changes throughout the whole organization) (Dunphy & Stace, 1993).
Directive
This style of management strategy refers to the use of managerial authority to affect change (Dunphy & Stace, 1993; Shang, 2012). Shang (2012) states that the directive approach works best in a top-down, autocratic, rule-based organization in a controlled environment. In this type of strategy managers inform their employees clearly about the change describing thoroughly the overall picture of the new system and how the users fit in this picture (Youngberg et al., 2009). Other aspects of this strategy is end-user training (Umble et al., 2003; Basoglu et al., 2007; Shang, 2012), rewarding ideas that will improve the business (Lim et al., 2005), clarification of the job definition before the change (Martinsons & Chong, 1999; Basoglu et al., 2007) and clearly document the new procedures (Zuboff, 1988). This all together will reduce user resistance and possibly a reduction in inequity in the perceived outcomes by the users (Shang, 2012).
Coercive
Collaborative
The focus of this approach lies in the participation of employees in important decisions about the future of the organization, and about bringing the organizational change (Dunphy & Stace, 1993). Involving employees or users in the change process claims to encourage a feeling of ownership and therefore the users feel responsible throughout the process (Mumford, 1979; Shang, 2012). According to Kwakh & Lee (2008) organizational commitment plays a key role in accepting change, and could therefore result in low user resistance. There are several ways to involve users in the process; providing users with information regarding the system (Lim et al., 2005), vision sharing (Dong et al., 2009), participative discussion (Lim et al., 2005) or by giving a leader or respected user a key role in the design and/or implementation of the change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). This approach can also be used to open up the communication lines between employees and management (Land, 1992) and in boosting the morale activities like parties and newsletters (Davidson, 1994).
Consultative
This type of management leadership involves consultation with employees, primarily about the means of bringing organizational change, with their possible limited involvement in goals setting relevant to their area of expertise or responsibility (Dunphy & Stace, 1993). Kim & Kankanhalli (2009) found that the perceived value of the change and the organizational support during the change could reduce user resistance. There are several ways to help employees adjust to change; orientation sessions as preparation of the change (Anderson, 1985; Dong et al., 2009), timely support with financial, physical or human resources (Youngberg et al., 2009), job counseling (Holmes and Holmes, 1970), and acknowledge the staff for the efforts they have made at work (Lim et al., 2005).
All of these management strategies are bundled and presented in table 2 with their respective definition or description.
organization can regain fit with the changed environment (Dunphy & Stace, 1988, 1993). Coercive leadership is especially effective when there is no support within the organization for the radical change but it is vital to survive. It is therefore important that the dominant coalition has sufficient power in this scenario (Dunphy & Stace, 1988). If this is not the case, then user resistance can be evoked and in combination of the possibility of losing their jobs, loss of promotion possibilities, or a transfer to another department it can result in more severe forms of user resistance. Shang (2012) mentioned that this type could also be effective when there are not many job opportunities in the region of the organization. Directive leadership is more “social” compared to the coercive approach; users are fully informed about the changes and the impact on the organization and their jobs. Users are trained and prepared for the change. According to Shang (2012) are these leadership styles best when there is none or mild resistance; apathy and passive resistance, however the directive leadership is preferred due to the better preparation for the users. It can therefore be concluded that on individual level directive leadership fits best.
Dent & Goldberg (1999) stated that participative or collaborative leadership is better to prepare users for the change than a directive or a coercive approach. They mention it is an ethical imperative for the management. Dunphy & Stace (1988) agree with them, employees that will be affected the most by the change should have a more significant role in the direction of the change. Neumann (1989) however found that two-thirds of the employees don’t even want to be participating in a change program when they have the opportunity. Shang (2012) mentioned that collaborative or consultative is only effective when there is medium to high resistance. These forms of leadership can take a lot of time, because there may be situations where the interests of the different parties that are involved in the change are incompatible (Dunphy & Stace, 1988). These leadership styles allow employees to talk freely about the shortages of the system or change from their viewpoint during the discussion or orientation sessions. Therefore at group level a collaborative or consultative leadership is preferred.
Table 1 – Definitions on Antecedents to resistance
Literature on Antecedents to Resistance
Literature Definition/Description Summary of Findings
Ginzberg, 1980; Markus & Robey, 1983
Organizational validity – the degree of fit or match between a system and its organizational context of use at four levels of analysis; user-system, organization structure-system, power distribution-system and environment-system.
Both papers found that when an organization choses a new system they need to reconcile whether there is
organizational validity on each of the four levels or analysis. However it’s hard to simply explain the connection between organizational validity and effective system use. Both papers found that it has a negative effect on the resistance towards the system and that the management needs to check each level of analysis for mismatches. This way the management could see how the system impacts the organization and allows them to make more intelligent decisions. Hirschheim & Newman,
1988
The lack of communication between IT
developers/implementers & the management – due to the fascination and the focus of IT developers or implementers on technical aspects of the system and the managements’ (usually) lack of knowledge on systems there is often too little communication between the parties. This could result in mismatches between the organization and the system, which eventually could lead to failure of the project.
In the study of Hirschheim & Newman they’ve mentioned that the lack of communication between the IT developers or implementers and the management could not only lead to misfits or mismatch between the organization and the system it also has effect on the success of the project. In their case study they found that it also could lead to poor technical quality of the system.
Schneidermann, 1981; Kling & Scacchi, 1984; Steinmuller, 1984
Poor technical quality – the degree whether the system is perceived as cumbersome to use by the users. Like an unfriendly, unreliable, lack of functionality or slow system.
According to the articles is the poor technical quality of system usually a result of low project-budget, bad fit between the organization and the system or the lack of involvement of users in the development. Users that need to use the system in their daily work would also not be enthusiastic when the system is not functioning properly. Which could result in avoidance of system use.
Ginzberg, 1975 Changes in the job content – the degree of change or alterations in the job activities or content due to the implementation of a new IS/IT.
Academics researching IS or IT implementations used to only look at the technical aspects of the system however Ginzberg noticed that the high failure rate of projects were not due to technical issues but by social aspects. According to the paper of Ginzberg one of the major points for failure is not clearly informing the future users how they will be affected or impacted by the new system. Users may need new skills to use the system and this could lead to not using the system as the management intends it.
De Jager, 1994 Job insecurity/uncertainty – degree of job
insecurity/uncertainty a user perceives when a new system or a change is occurring within the business
unit/organization the user is operating.
The author points out in this paper that before a change is manageable first one must understand the change and accept his mechanisms. According to de Jager are all models explaining how to cope with change inappropriate because applying them don’t provide you with an understanding of the change. He mentioned that we will be confused when the application of the model fail to deliver the desired results. It is thus important for managers that manage (IT) changes should use appropriate models and related strategies and tactics, which accurately represent the reality of the change.
Young & Jordan (2008) Top management support – devoting time to the IS/IT program in proportion to its cost and potential, reviewing plans, following up on results and facilitating the management problems involved with integrating ICT with the management process of the business. These activities will be assumed to be undertaken by a senior management project sponsor/champion, the CEO and by the other senior managers.
Ives & Olson (1984) User involvement – refers to the participation in the system development process by the representatives of the target user group. Which should lead to an improved chance of successful system implementation.
In the study the authors found that user involvement is poorly grounded in theory and methodologically flawed, as a result that the benefits of user involvement have not been convincingly demonstrated. The authors introduce a framework for firms mapping previous research that can provide future directions for a better understanding in involving users.
Lucas, 1973; Klaus & Blanton, 2010
Lack of training/education – the problem when users perceive training to be a waste of time, that trainers are incompetent, the timing of training is inappropriate, or if there is a lack of training.
Markus, 1983; Joshi, 1991
Loss of power – the problem that arise when the new system alters the balance of power within a business unit or organization. Users that lose power will resist the change and users that gain power would accept.
Both authors introduce models to produce a better theory-based understanding of user resistance to change. According to Markus (1983) do users resist due to interaction between their own internal factors and the system. Joshi (1991) model complements Markus her model; users not only look at their own situation but compares it with a user in a similar position. When a user perceives an inequity or loss of equity the user is likely to resist the change.
Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009; Kim, 2011
Switching costs – the costs a users needs to endure when switching from the status quo to the new system. When its costs are negative it are considered as switching costs, however when they’re positive its called switching benefits.
According to Kim (2009, 2011) are switching costs the main reason for user resistance to change. Users evaluate their status quo by comparing the current and the past situation and checks whether the change has improved their position. When a user perceives he or she didn’t benefitted from the change then the user will not accept the change.
Table 2 – Definitions on management strategies
Literature on Management Strategy
Literature Definition/Description Summary of Findings
Youngberg et al., 2009 Overall picture how the users fit in – managers need to inform the users about the change by clearly describing the overall picture of the new system flow and visually show them how the components fit into the whole system.
According to the paper it is important for IT managers on how end users perception on the usefulness, intention of use and the self-reported usage. In the study they’ve found that a higher acceptance of the users can be achieved by a. providing a clear picture of how the users fit in the change, b. provide an easy unstable tech talk without jargon and c. by providing adequate resources to ensure that end users have access to timely support.
Umble et al., 2003; Basoglu et al., 2007
End-user training – providing users with (basic) information and knowledge about the system so that they understand how the system works and how to use it properly.
Lim et al., 2005 Rewarding ideas that will improve the business – rewarding users with a reward like a sense of accomplishment, social recognition, pay raise or promotion when they actively think with the management providing them with ideas about how to improve the business.
In the paper the authors point out that the management and users frequently do not share a coherent vision in ERP development. This is due to the different position within the organization and hierarchy that might cause opposing views regarding the usefulness of the system. Managers usually neglect user concerns that are relatively more localized or individualistic and this could lead to avoid the system or using it the wrong way. Managers or implementers must acknowledge that usage is intimately tied to the sustained fulfillment of system users’ cognitive expectations. It is thus vital to constantly assess users’ socio-psychological requirements in order to prevent the misinterpretation of their actions.
Martinssons & Chong, 1999; Basoglu et al., 2007
Clarification of the job definition before the change – managers must inform the users in which ways the new system impacts their job and daily activities before the system is implemented. Doing so users could perhaps
Both papers address the fact that implementation of ERP system is not an easy task. Still a lot of implementations fail because there is much literature on acceptance in ERP implementation but there is not empirically supported literature on critical ERP adoption issues. Martinssons & Chong (1999) mention that due to the increasing use of Is/IT end-user support is becoming more important. Users need to be involved as soon as possible within the development. However time and resource constraints may cause a hurdle. Zuboff, 1988 Clearly document the new processes – managers must
provide users with clear documentation how to something is done. Mapping the procedures allows users to check whether they are doing it right. It also allows the management with a better possibility of monitoring.
IT is becoming more important in organizations each year. The management needs to consider its consequences for human beings and the qualities of their work environment. The underlying nature of IT requires understanding; the habitual assumptions used in design must surface. Managers’ ability to meet these demands will be a more important determinant of the quality of work in future organizations.
Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979
Threaten loss of job and promotion possibilities – managers can use coercive measures to force users to accept the change. It is a risky process using coercion because inevitably people strongly resent forced change. However in situations where speed is essential and where changes will not be popular coercion may be the only solution for the manager.
According to the authors can managers improve the chance of success in a change by; conducting an organizational analysis that identifies the current situation and her problems, conducting an analysis of factors relevant to producing the needed changes, selecting a change strategy based on the conducted analyses, and by monitoring the implementation process closely.
Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979
Fire or transfer people who are actively resisting – this also is a method for managers in the coercive change method (see
above).
See at ‘Threaten loss of job and promotion possibilities’.
Mumford, 1979; Shang, 2012
Involving users in the change process – managers must involve users in the development of the system because it not only enhances the possibility of success of the change but also commits the user to the project and creates some sort of responsibility to the system.
Mumford and Shang both trying to achieve to create a better understanding of underlying causes of resistance. Mumford (1979) found that it is important to provide transparency in the information. The information must be available to the users at all time. He also found that the order of implementation is more important than was thought in previous literature. Shang (2012) found that operational and managerial users both react different to the system. Operational users are more concerned by there own well being while managerial users think more about their practice of business goal achievements and thus focus more from the organization’s point of view.
Lim et al., 2005 Providing users with the information regarding the system changes – by providing these kinds of information on system changes users will get more committed to the organization which according to Kwakh & Lee (2008) plays an important
role in users’ acceptance of change.
Dong et al., 2009 Vision sharing – actions related to ensuring that lower-level managers or end-users develop a common understanding of the core objectives and ideals for the new system.
The authors found that there are three types of top management support; resource provision, change management and vision sharing, and these types all have different effect on the project. They found that resource provision affects the project completion while change management impacts the formation of user skills and attitudes. Vision sharing on the other hand influences the middle-manager buy-in.
Lim et al., 2005 Participative discussion – managers must be willing to listen attentively to their subordinates, users, in order to cultivate mutually reinforcing communicative and collaborative organizational practices.
See at ‘Rewarding ideas that will improve the business’.
Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979
Co-opting – co-opting is a form of manipulation by giving a leader or respected user a key role in the design. By doing so changes could easily gain individual’s or a group’s support. It also is relatively inexpensive.
See at ‘Threaten loss of job and promotion possibilities’.
Anderson, 1985; Dong et al., 2009
Orientation sessions to prepare for change – in these sessions managers provides users with information on the changes that are upcoming and what the impact is on their work. Doing so management show that they are supportive and to prepare the users for the change.
Both papers address the importance of being supportive to users to increase the possibility of success of the project. Anderson (1985) suggests that user involvement is critical but is a vague term in the literature. In his paper he addresses guidelines how to cope with user involvement. For Dong et al. (2009) see ‘vision sharing’.
Youngberg et al., 2009 Timely support with financial, physical or human resources – when users have problems with the system, perceives that the system isn’t useful or the lack of organization support they needed to be morally supported. One-way of doing this is by timely providing them with adequate resources to circumvent these negative sentiments.
See at ‘Overall picture how the users fit in’
Holmes & Holmes, 1970 Job counseling – changes does not only impact the organization and the daily job activities of the manager and the user but could also have effect on personal issues of the user, like health or family issues. By providing job counseling users can be supported by his or her colleagues, managers or shrinks. By providing this kind of support the issues of the user could be solved thereby increasing his or hers’ productivity or efficiency.
They found that a severe change in life of an individual could cause health issues like chronic illness. However there wasn’t any clear effect on the health issues and the productivity of the individual.
Lim et al., 2005 Acknowledge the staff for their work efforts – managers could use flyers or brochures to acknowledge the staff for their efforts they have made at work. By doing so managers can circumvent the negative sentiments like job insecurity or lack of recognition in an impersonal workplace environment.
Table 3 – Holistic model of user resistance
Resistance
Behavior Antecedents Organizational level Management strategy
Apathy/Passive
resistance Organizational validity Individual Directive/Coercive
Lack of communication between firm and
implementers
Individual Directive/Coercive
Poor technical quality Individual Directive/Coercive
Top Management Support Individual Directive/Coercive
Active /Aggressive
resistance
Changes in job content Individual/Group Collaborative/Consultative
Job uncertainty Individual/Group Collaborative/Consultative
Training/education Individual/Group Collaborative/Consultative
Loss of power Individual/Group Collaborative/Consultative
Switching costs Individual/Group Collaborative/Consultative
Involving users in the
implementation process Individual/Group Collaborative/Consultative
3. Research methodology and data collection
There is increasing recognition of the importance of studying technology in use to inform the development of new technology. Ferneley & Sobreperez (2006) argue that there are relatively few analyses that look at what actually is ‘done’ with technology.
Interpretive research does not predefine dependent and independent variables but focuses on the complexity of human sense making as the situation emerges (Kaplan & Maxwell, 1994; Klein & Myers, 1999); it tries to understand the phenomenon through the meanings that people assign to them (Orlikowski & Baroudi, 1991; Deetz, 1996; Klein & Myers, 1999). The type of interpretive research that is used in this paper is the field study. The field study focuses on the in-depth case study (Walsham, 1993). An in-depth case study is a research strategy that focuses on understanding the dynamics present with single settings (Eisenhardt, 1989). It could be used to various aims; to provide description (Kindler, 1982), test theory (Anderson, 1983; Pinfield, 1986), or generate theory (Harris & Sutton, 1986; Gersick, 1988). In this paper the first two; to provide description and test theory are mainly of interest. Case studies normally combine different kinds of data collections; archives, interviews, questionnaires, and observations (Eisenhardt, 1989). Semi-structured interviews and observations are used in this paper to achieve the broad and the in-depth data needed to explain the relation between technological change and user resistance.
Case description
In 2007 two large Dutch financial services firms, in this paper referred to as A and B, decided to merge. The firms merged into one of the biggest financial services firm in the area, referred to as C. After the merger in 2007 A and B operated separately till 2009. Begin 2009 the management of C tried to combine both firms A and B in the systems of A to cut the number of operational systems, lowering the overall costs. However due to the high operating costs of A’s systems it would be cheaper to build new systems that could serve all customers from both firms. Therefore the management of C introduced a three-year plan to replace the main old systems of A and B with new systems that needed to be operational before 2012. Due to the scale of this project the management gave every department (daily banking, mortgages, insurances and investment services) their own responsibility to find and implement a new suitable system but the management kept a top-down supervision.
results with a lot of improvement proposals. Although the test users were unhappy with the system, the investment management on interpreted the tests as a success. They were only interested in whether all functions worked proper and that was the case.
The investment management needed to integrate almost one million customer accounts in EF, and therefore together with ITD they decided to implement the system in five phases. Each phase represents a customer segment, starting off with customers with small amounts invested at A & B and ending with wealthy customers with millions of Euros invested. For the investment management the first two phases, planned in May and September 2010, were the biggest tests for EF because these two phases represent about 95% of the total amount of customer accounts. The other three segments were implemented in March 2011, November 2011 and February 2012. The last phase therefore was overdue. The investment management however was not concerned with meeting the deadline of the three-year plan because the implementation of EF already was a success. The performance indicator for success was 99% successful transferred accounts and they achieved that. The investment management was primarily focused on the technical and costs aspect of the system. They were not concerned about how users perceived the implementation. They have not held a survey or asked the users what their opinion was on the implementation process and what they could do better in future implementation.
Figure 1 – Case timeline
management reports. Investment management can use these reports to monitor the employees, processes and the overall performance of the department. Every change that is made by customers or by users regardless of the front- or back-office it is processed real-time in the customers’ account, this took the old systems about a day. Also for the users the system has made their work easier because all sorts of activities (like settling, clearing or manual calculation computing) is done automatically. This is due to middle-ware, which enables a connection between EF and the systems of other services providers, like for example with NYSE Euronext (provides stock exchanges), Reuters (financial news) or Markit (real-time stock information). EF not only provides the department with more efficiency it also decreases the amount of error-prone activities; all activities like settling, clearing and computing calculation was all manually done in the old systems. To lower the risks even more the front-office did not have any access to a up system, this could only be accessed by the back-office. In contrast to the old system the front-office had access to a back-up system and that allowed them to immediately solve problems without enabling a back-office user to do it.
Figure 2 – Schematic overview of EF
decrease in proposition could therefore end in losing customers to competitors that provides the derivatives. Like stated earlier the front-office users did not have access to a back-up system anymore. The old systems both had a front- and back-office log-on portal like EF, however in the old situatilog-on frlog-ont-office employees had access to both portals. Therefore the users could directly solve problems when they arose. When there is a problem in EF a complaint needs to be filed at the back-office and it takes a minimum of three days and maximum of ten to solve the problem. In the old systems front-office users could just access the back-up system and solve the problem within minutes. Final drawback of EF is that certain functionalities, that were useful to users in the old systems, were left out. Examples are combination ordering and transfer of money between customer accounts. Both were available in the old systems and were used a lot by the users to satisfy the customer. Investment management however did not gave any explanations on why these functionalities were left out, and whether if they were coming in the future.
Table 4 – Comparison between the old systems and EF
System A System B EF
Strengths 1. Access to back-up system when the user portal was down
1. Access to back-up system when the user portal was down
1. Real-time information processing
2. Almost every share/derivative is buyable for the user
2. Almost every share/derivative is buyable for the user
2. Front & back-office integration
3. Rigid and stable system 3. Rigid and stable system 3. Same lay-out for users and customers
4. All client information, like accounts, savings, mortgages etc. in one system
4. Clear and easy lay-out
5. Possibility to transfer money between accounts
Weaknesses 1. Some products can't be bought through the internet, only by phone
1. Some products can't be bought through the internet, only by phone
1. Smaller proposition of shares than in the older systems
2. Difficult to navigate (manuals were sometimes needed)
2. Difficult to navigate (manuals were sometimes needed)
2. Certain functions missing; combination orders, transfer between accounts, possibility to buy almost all types of derivatives
3. No real-time information processing
3. No real-time information processing 3. No access to a back-up system when the EF is down 4. Trading in mutual funds
required a different system
The company of C, in particular the investment services department, had a opportunity due to the merger to reorganize the current systems and procedures throughout the entire organization. Due to the redundancy of systems management of C chose to replace all old system with state-of-the-art new ones. During a large reorganization, like at C, a lot of changes are made that could have impact on the user. Especially when new systems are introduced, it could impact the working habits of the user and enabling (user) resistance to change. In the case of EF all working habits of the users have been changed. This makes it a good case to test the holistic model of user resistance because every aspect of the model could be examined.
Data Collection
Table 5 – Overview of the research participants
Nr. Role Experience (in years) Education Length (in minutes) 1 Unit Support 12 Bachelor 31 2 Personal Banker 3,5 Bachelor 26 3 Personal Banker 8 Bachelor 37 4 Personal Banker 5,5 Master 27 5 Personal Banker 14 Bachelor 21 6 Personal Banker 6 Bachelor 22 7
Investment
Advisor 14 Bachelor 28
8 Personal Banker 3,5 Master 35 9 Investment Advisor 34 Associate 49 10 Investment Advisor 3 Master 18
11 Personal Banker 7 Associate 25 12
Investment
Advisor 3,5 Master 36
13 Personal Banker 7,5 Bachelor 28 14 Investment Advisor 3 Master 31 15 Investment Advisor 3 Master 18 16 Investment Advisor 3,5 Master 25 17 Investment Advisor 3,5 Master 24
18 Personal Banker 11 Bachelor 33 19 Personal Banker 12 Bachelor 34 20 Unit Support 16 Bachelor 25
21 Unit Support 8 Bachelor 45
22 Unit Support 13 Bachelor 46
Data Analysis
Table 6 – Klein & Myers (1999): Principles of interpretive field research Principle Definition Study evaluation/justification
1. Fundamental principle of the hermeneutic circle
"Requires that understanding is achieved by iterating between considering the interdependent meaning of parts and the whole that they form"
Understanding the relationship between the antecedents to resistance and resistance behavior, resistance behavior and organizational level, and organizational level and management strategy. Doing this by reviewing previous literature on each of the relationships and test them through iterative interviews between the three groups of interest; investment advisors, personal bankers and unit support trainers.
2. Principle of Contextualization
"Requires critical reflection of the social and historical background of the research setting, so that the intended audience can see how the current situation under investigation emerged"
Interviewing not only the investment advisors and Personal Bankers that use the system in their daily endeavours but also interview Unit Support who are responsible for the training and maintaining the knowledge on the system
3. Principle of interaction between the researchers and the subjects
"Requires critical reflection on how the research materials (or "data") were socially constructed through the interaction between the researchers and participants"
Prior to the interviews I had little knowledge on the actual implementation. Through the iterative interviews my understanding improved a lot. This allowed me to ask different questions outside the questionnaire which might be of interest for the study.
4. Principle of abstraction and generalization
"Requires relating the idiographic details revealed by the data interpretation through the application of principles one and two to the theoretical, general concepts that describe the nature of human understanding and social action"
The model used in this paper is unique is his kind however the variables; antecedents to resistance, resistance behaviors and management strategies are based on existent. Antecedents are based on the Political variant of the Interaction Theory of Markus (1983). The resistance behaviors are based on the taxonomy of Coetsee (1999), while the management strategies are discussed in the relation to the Dunphy/Stace Change Matrix (1993).
5. Principle of dialogical reasoning
"Requires sensitivity to possible contradictions between the theoretical preconceptions guiding the research design and actual findings ("the story which the data tell") with subsequent cycles of revision"
Using the data to first open code all types of antecedents, resistance behaviors, organizational level, and management strategy according to their respective models before combining them in one model from my framework.
6. Principle of multiple interpretations
"Requires sensitivity to possible differences in interpretations amend the participants as are typically expressed in multiple narratives or stories of the same sequence of events under study. Similar to multiple witness accounts even if all tell it as they saw it"
Gathering information/data from 22 semi-structured interviews from the three different groups from the same department. These groups differ in education level and experience at the organization, which provides different angles on the implementation of EF.
7. Principle of suspicion
"Requires sensitivity to possible "biases" and systematic "distortions" in the narratives collected from the participants".
4. Research results
Tables 7-10 show the results of the transcripts analysis. Like in the literature review first the results of the antecedents to resistance are discussed. Second the results on resistance behaviors and as third the organizational level results are discussed. Table 10 shows finally the results on management strategies. This chapter ends with a comparison between the findings and the holistic model presented in table 3.
Antecedents to resistance
The results show us that before the implementation the top three antecedents were involving users in the development process, poor technical quality and switching costs. The poor technical quality could be the result of not or limited involvement of the users in the development process. According to Hirschheim & Newman (1988) users’ participation not only produces more commitment to the change but also gain more knowledge of it and enhances the systems quality. Investment Advisor nr. 17 stated:
"I had the feeling the management wanted to involve us with the development of the system but they didn’t do that any good. I had the feeling that they didn’t thought it through how to involve us. We have a lot of knowledge and experiences about and with our customers so why didn’t the management used it"
The switching costs mentioned before the implementation also could be explained by the change in the status quo; people don’t like changes because it could change their way of working. Often new skills and processes are required when a new system is implemented (Klaus & Blanton, 2010), so users could perceive this as switching costs. Unit Support nr. 20 mentioned that:
Table 7– Transcript results on the antecedents to resistance
Implementation
Antecedents Before After
System Organizational Validity 2 7,4% 2 1,2%
Lack of communication between IT
developer & the management 2 7,4% 2 1,2%
Poor Technical Quality 4 14,8% 46 28,6%
People Changes in job content 3 11,1% 20 12,4%
Changes in the decision-making
process 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Changes in interpersonal relationships 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Job uncertainty/insecurity 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Top management support 3 11,1% 64 39,8%
Involving users in the development
process 6 22,2% 11 6,8%
Training/education 1 3,7% 3 1,9%
Interaction Loss of power 1 3,7% 1 0,6%
Switching costs 5 18,5% 12 7,5%
Total 27 100,0% 161 100,0%
After the implementation the top three of antecedents has shifted totally; top management support, poor technical quality and changes in job content. The lack of top management support was mentioned by every participant. The reason for that lies in three causes; lack of feedback on emails (signals) that were send in by the users, lack of clear processes and clarifications in changes in job content, and the promises made by the management. The lack of feedback on signals was perceived as frustrated by the users; in their job content it is expected to send in signals to the management about process improvements or when there is a problem like for example incorrect information on the website. However when the users send a signal the management did not respond or did not gave any feedback. Some of the participants like Personal Banker nr. 8 mentioned:
"I’ve stopped with sending signals for a while, because I knew that the management weren’t doing anything about my signals. They were focused on something else. Also due to the fact that the process of sending signals wasn’t that clear, so I wasn’t really motivated any more to do send it"
content of the users and in unclear processes a lot of questions arose at the work floor of the users; for example Investment Advisor nr. 12 stated:
“A detailed explanation on what was happening wasn’t available. After the implementation we, the users, noticed that the available information wasn’t sufficient to help every customer”
Personal Banker nr. 18 stated something likewise;
“We weren’t informed at all. If they had communicated to us what they’re doing at the moment and when we could expect a change in the system that would’ve been great. I really think this is a missed opportunity”
Most of the participants agreed with these comments. They found that there were a lot of vague processes and needed more information on the change. This resulted not only in problems during their work activities but also in less confidence and trust in the management. Investment Advisor nr. 16 stated:
“They, the management, haven’t been honest to us what kind of system they wanted to implement, they’ve mislead us from the start. I became more negative towards the management from then on”
The users therefore perceived a low Top Management Support (TMS) and this could have lead to more resistance. At the start of the EF project investment management announced they wanted to become the best broker in the Netherlands and that the system was going to be the next best thing. But during the development it became clear that the management had gone a different direction. Unit Support nr. 1 told: “At first I had the feeling we were getting a trader system with a lot of functionalities as our competitor iBroker however along the way I noticed that the organization didn’t want these kinds of customers. They wanted to attract and focus on the group with more than 75.000 Euros in investable assets because it is more profitable. The management never told us why they had changed their initial statements”
So there was a lack of open communication between the management and the end-users because when the new system was implemented a lot of functionalities were missing that were available in the old systems. Like Personal Banker nr. 18 mentioned:
The management promised to the end users that the missing functionalities would soon be implemented in EF. However due to the many problems with the technical quality of the system a few weeks after the implementation the focus of the management lay mainly on fixing the system of instead on the missing functionalities. Almost every participant mentioned something like Investment Advisor nr. 16: “A few weeks/months after the implementation the management didn’t do anything to solve our problems. They only promised us they would. They told us that within a few months the functionality would be implemented or improved upon but even after two years of use since the first phase it still isn’t possible”
Most of the participants that mentioned TMS also mentioned the poor technical quality of the system. From the transcript analysis it can be concluded that this was due to several reasons; fast implementation due to the working plan, stability problems and functionality problems. The fast implementation of the system caused a lot of vague processes and in functionalities that didn’t work properly. However the management needed to find a system after the failure of their project in India and due to the deadlines of the three-year plan of the organization they needed it to be implemented quickly. Personal Banker nr 15 mentioned:
“The system itself however wasn’t really finished. I had the feeling it was rammed through due to the planning that was made earlier. The side effect was that in the base of the system a lot of errors arose"
The biggest of these errors was the stability of the system. The management told the users that like the old system the new system would be a reliable and stable system. But after the implementation the system was the opposite of what the management had told. The system frequently went offline due to server problems at C’s data center. At the front-office as user you could not access EF anymore so you could not help the customer with their requests. Investment advisor nr 16 stated:
"After the implementation it just went bad. The system was incomplete and in my opinion the system was brought to early. This caused a dip in my trust towards the management and the project. I felt hustled"
Besides the errors and stability problems also not all functionalities didn’t work properly. Investment Advisor nr 12 told:
Also the users noticed that the system had a lot of limitations in comparison with the old system. Some of the functionalities, like mentioned in the case study (page 24) the possibility of transferring money or placing a combination order, which were available in the old system weren’t in the system at all. The investment management, liked mentioned earlier, promised they would come in upcoming months in updates. Users felt they couldn’t offer the customer anything more than the customer could do on the Internet. This had impact on the working pleasure of the users because this changed their job content negatively, like Personal banker nr 11 mentioned:
“I couldn’t offer the customers what they were used to. I had the feeling that went a step back in our service. Many things we could do before we couldn’t do in the new system. We went unintentionally back in our service. I think the management didn’t thought this true and what the consequences might be”
Table 8 – Antecedents’ orientation
If one looks at table 8 it can be noticed that before the implementation the focus lay more on the interaction-oriented antecedents and less on the system- and people-oriented antecedents than after the implementation. Perhaps this is due to the statement of Oreg (2003), who argues that individuals try to maintain their status quo and persistently avoid changes thus resulting in higher forms of resistance behaviors to maintain their status quo. Interesting is that after the implementation the absolute number of interaction-oriented antecedents had risen but due to the poor technical quality and the lack of top management support it had been snowed under. While some researchers (Markus, 1983; Joshi, 1991, Kim & Kankanhalli, 2009) found that switching costs and the loss of power, thus the interaction-oriented antecedents has been mentioned as one of the biggest causes for resistance behaviors. The data does not correspondent with this statement.
Implementation
Antecedent
orientation Before After Difference
System-oriented 8 30% 50 31% 5%
People-oriented 13 48% 98 61% 26%
Interaction-oriented 6 22% 13 8% -64%
Table 9 – Transcripts results on resistance behavior
Implementation
Resistance behaviors Before After
Apathy Lacking interest 2 8,0% 1 3,4%
Being inactive 21 84,0% 5 17,2%
Passive Doing as little as possible 0 0,0% 9 31,0%
Not cooperating 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Delay tactics 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Making excuses 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Denying the need for change 1 4,0% 0 0,0%
Avoid the system 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Humor 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Active Complaining about the system/project 1 4,0% 11 37,9%
Reducing the commitment to the
organization 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Refuse to engage in joint problem
solving 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Voicing opposing views regarding the
system 0 0,0% 3 10,3%
Pretending to comply 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Asking others to intervene 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Attacking the credibility of the
implementers 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Forming coalitions 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Showing overt blocking behavior 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Non-utilization 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Withdrawing or leaving the
organization 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Aggressive Deliberately commit errors 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Making threats and ultimatums 0 0,0% 0 0,0%
Rebelling 0 0,0% 0 0,0% Strikes/boycotts 0 0,0% 0 0,0% Spoilage 0 0,0% 0 0,0% Sabotage 0 0,0% 0 0,0% Violance/destructive behavior 0 0,0% 0 0,0% Killing 0 0,0% 0 0,0% Total 25 100,0% 29 100,0% Resistance behavior
