Does attitude influence reactions? The influence of
change agents‟ attitudes on change recipients‟
reactions.
The effects of change agents' strategies and agent-recipient interaction on change implementation.
by
MARLOUS WIND
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
March 2015
Supervisor: dr. J. F. J. Vos Second supervisor: dr. J. Rupert
Stationsweg 146x 2515 BS Den Haag m.m.wind@student.rug.nl
Student number 1997882
Word count: 15,754
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ... 4
INTRODUCTION ... 5
LITERATURE REVIEW ... 8
Attitude towards resistance ... 8
Change agent‟s role in change recipients‟ reactions ... 8
Reactions to change ... 9
Relationship between change agents‟ and change recipients‟ reactions ... 10
METHODOLOGY ... 11
Research site and design ... 11
Data collection and respondents ... 12
Procedure. ... 12
Questionnaires. ... 14
Interviews including vignettes. ... 14
Data analysis ... 16
Controllability, reliability, and validity ... 19
RESULTS ... 21
Case 1 ... 21
Change agent‟s attitude. ... 21
Change agent‟s role in reactions. ... 22
Change recipients‟ reactions. ... 22
Summary case 1. ... 25
Case 2 ... 27
Change agent‟s attitude. ... 27
Change agent‟s role in reactions. ... 27
Change recipients‟ reactions. ... 28
Summary case 2. ... 30
Case 3 ... 31
Change agent‟s attitude. ... 31
Change agent‟s role in reactions. ... 32
Change recipient‟s reactions. ... 32
Summary case 3. ... 35
3
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 39
Theoretical implications ... 39
Practical implications ... 41
Limitations, reflections and suggestions for future research ... 42
The use of vignettes. ... 42
Other reflections. ... 43
REFERENCES ... 46
APPENDIX A: DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH SITE AND CHANGE PROJECT ... 50
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS CHANGE AGENTS ... 51
Intentional component ... 51
APPENDIX C: QUESTIONNAIRE ITEMS CHANGE RECIPIENTS ... 52
Affective component ... 52
Cognitive component ... 52
Intentional component ... 52
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS CHANGE AGENT ... 53
Part 1: Vignettes ... 53
Part 2: Questions ... 54
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS CHANGE RECIPIENTS ... 56
Part 1: Vignettes ... 56
Part 2: Questions ... 57
APPENDIX F: CONSOLIDATED CODING SCHEME ... 59
4 ABSTRACT
5 INTRODUCTION
In recent change management literature, change recipients‟ resistance to change has been investigated widely (e.g. Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker, 2007; Ford, Ford, & D‟Amelio, 2008; Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011). The interpretation of resistance developed from something that tends to disrupt change and has to be avoided to something that can be defined along several dimensions and is not necessarily negative (Ford et al., 2008; Ford & Ford, 2009). The dominant view was a view in which the change agent was central (Klein, 1976). It was assumed that change agents were taking the company forward by bringing change. In doing so, they had to deal with change recipients, whose reactions to change were irrational and dysfunctional (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Ford et al., 2008; Klein, 1967; Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979). It is a realist perspective (Burnes, 2004), in that it sees the world as having one reality, based on logic and reason. From this perspective, resistance is irrational behavior of change recipients, accurately perceived by change agents (Burnes, 2004; Ford et al., 2008). The possibility that resistance is something that is perceived and interpreted by change agents, or even that it can be something constructive, was not considered for a long time (Ford et al., 2008). However, a turnaround came.
Around the 1990s, several writers started to note that there is another side to resistance (e.g. Dent & Goldberg, 1999; King & Anderson, 1995; Klein, 1976; Meston & King, 1996). Knowles & Linn (2004) found that thoughtful consideration leads to resistance. Since thoughtful consideration was seen as a positive contribution to change, resistance was seen as helpful too. In areas other than change management, such as applied social psychology, dissent (if authentic) was found to be functional (Nemeth, Connell, Rogers, & Brown, 2001). In these and other studies, the view on resistance became more balanced. If resistance is a thoughtful reaction, it may show commitment (Piderit, 2000). Reactions could still be irrational and dysfunctional, but consideration is given to the possibility that they can be positive, in that they reflect that the recipients care about what is going on, and that using that care and commitment means gaining some well-thought and motivated change partners (Ford & Ford, 2009; Kotter, 1995).
6 types occurs, from supporting users and supporting non-users to resisting users and resisting non-users. Another typology resulted from research by Elizur and Guttman (1976), defining attitudes as having an affective, cognitive, or intentional component. Piderit (2000) applied this typology to resistance and explained that several reactions on change were possible.
While we have a clear view of what possible reactions change recipients may have to change, it is under-researched what view change agents have on these reactions. In general, it can be assumed that change agents will have a positive attitude towards change recipients‟ positive reactions, but their attitude towards more negative reactions, often labeled as resistance, is unknown. The change agent can have the traditional attitude towards resistance by perceiving it as something negative; an obstacle in change. On the other hand, it can be perceived it as something positive; a sign of commitment that, when worked with and listened to, may lead to a collaborative and engaged manner of implementing change. Of course, there is a variety of views between these two views. Any relationship between the change agent‟s attitude towards resistance and the change recipients‟ reactions has not been investigated. Gaining an understanding of the possible relationship between these factors is of managerial interest because it helps the change agent to understand why and when certain reactions occur so that preparation of the process and even reflection on his or her own attitude can make the change process smoother and better.
Furthermore, no research has been performed on how change agents perceive their own role in contributing to change recipients‟ reactions. Some authors have investigated how change agents could possibly influence these reactions. For instance, Andersson (1996) proposed that poor communication or the use of certain management techniques may lead to negative attitudes. Ford et al. (2008) also proposed several ways in which change agents might have a part in creating resistance; such as misrepresentation and violation of trust. However, it is still unclear why some managers are able to communicate effectively and others are not; where the inability to provoke positive reactions comes from. The change agent‟s attitude towards change recipients‟ reactions could be the key in solving this gap. If change agents would be aware of their own role in the occurrence of resistance, they could develop this understanding so that they know how they can positively contribute to the change recipients‟ reactions.
7 reactions; or even as an antecedent of other antecedents such as poor communication. Also, there is no granular understanding of what influences the several types or dimensions of reactions, which is another element this study aims to contribute to. By doing a qualitative research, this study aims to establish propositions about how change recipients‟ reactions to change are influenced by the change agent‟s attitude towards resistance and the change agent‟s view on their own role in the change recipients‟ reactions‟. A bilateral perspective will be taken. In other words, both the change agents‟ attitudes and the actual reactions will be described from the point of view of both the change agent and the change recipients. That way, it is assessable to which extent both views align, which can make propositions stronger and which increases validity by avoiding mono-method bias and self-report bias (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). The research question of this paper is (also displayed in Figure 1):
What is the influence of the change agent‟s attitudes on change recipients‟ reactions to change?
FIGURE 1 Research question
Change agent‟s attitude towards: - Resistance
- Own role in contributing to reactions
What influence?
Change recipients‟ reactions to change - Affective
- Cognitive - Intentional
Bilateral perspective: Change agent‟s view
8 LITERATURE REVIEW
Attitude towards resistance
The definition of attitudes has evolved from a blend of attitudes and beliefs to separate definitions of 1) attitudes and 2) beliefs. Fishbein and Raven (1962, p. 42) performed a study to create an operational definition of belief and of attitude. They provided the following definition of „attitude‟: “the evaluative dimension of a concept – „Is it good or bad?‟”. Eagly and Chaiken (2007, p. 598) build further on the several established definitions of attitude to arrive at an inclusive definition: “a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a
particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor”. What clearly arises in these and
other definitions of „attitude‟ (e.g. Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) is the value that the individual attaches to the phenomenon towards which the attitude is directed. Therefore, in this research, the change agent‟s attitude towards resistance is defined along the dimension from negative to positive: does the change agent evaluate resistance as good or bad? Or as more good than bad? Ford & Ford (2009) found that managers have different attitudes towards resistance. Whereas some had a more negative attitude and perceived resistance as a threat, others saw it more positively and used it by “paying attention to, understanding, and learning from
[resistance] behaviors” (Ford & Ford, 2009, p. 100). These different attitudes have been
described in literature (Ford et al., 2008; Klein, 1967, Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979; Oreg et al., 2011), but have not been studied under change agents.
Change agent’s role in change recipients’ reactions
9 Ford et al. (2008) do not indicate whether the change agents are aware of these processes. In other words, the authors did find possible ways in which change agents influence reactions, but they have not yet explained to what change agents are aware of these actions and how they can use this information to their benefit to create more positive reactions. If such knowledge could be developed, that would significantly increase change agents‟ ability to understand and manage change recipients‟ reactions for the benefit of the change.
Also, many authors have discussed how to overcome or reduce resistance. Battilana and Casciaro (2013, p. 820) state that “cooptation is the preeminent influence tactic to
manage those with the potential to hinder an actor‟s goals”. Others (e.g. Geller, 2003;
Lawrence, 1969) have discussed ways to overcome resistance once present. However, these studies concern dealing with resistance once it had already occurred, whereas this study focuses on how change agents may initially play a role in certain reactions to change, rather than how they may play a role in overcoming or reducing negative reactions or resistance once they are already there. Therefore, the outcomes of this study might help change agents in
preventing negative reactions.
Reactions to change
10 negative on all three dimensions are labeled resistance to change whereas the reactions that are positive on all three dimensions are labeled support for change (Piderit, 2000). The reactions in between are conceptualized as ambivalence (Piderit, 2000). To fully grasp the range of reactions that occur and the role that the change agent plays in this occurrence, it is necessary to take the full palette of possible reactions into consideration.
Relationship between change agents’ and change recipients’ reactions
Extensive research has been performed on change recipients‟ reactions to change and the antecedents and consequences of these reactions (Armenakis, & Bedeian, 1999; Miller, Johnson, & Grau, 1994; Oreg, 2003; Oreg, 2006; Oreg et al., 2011). For instance, Oreg et al. (2011) performed a broad quantitative literature review investigating change consequences such as personal consequences and work related consequence, and reaction antecedents such as change recipient characteristics, change content, and perceived benefit or harm (Oreg et al., 2011). However, the basic attitude that the change agent holds and how that attitude may influence change recipients‟ reactions have not yet been investigated. Oreg et al. (2011, p.515) provide the following direction for future research: “transferring at least part of the
research focus to the change agents‟ actions and reactions could help introduce into the literature a different perspective on change recipients‟ role vis-à-vis that of the change agent”. In other words, comparing the role of the change agent to the role of the change
11 METHODOLOGY
The aim of this study is to provide an initial understanding of how the change recipients‟ reactions are influenced by the change agent‟s attitude towards resistance and towards their own role in the change recipients‟ reactions. Since this phenomenon has not been explained in academic literature, the theory development research approach fits the purpose of this study (van Aken, Berend, & van der Bij, 2012). It follows the first part of the empirical cycle (de Groot & Spiekerman, 1969; Blumberg, Cooper, & Schindler, 2011), of which the next step is to observe this phenomenon in practice (van Aken et al., 2012).
Research site and design
The research site is the headquarters of a multinational company. A major organizational structure change was initiated in November 2013. It was found that the then existing structure for one department, the AB&CD department, was not efficient, inconsistently used, and not sustainable. A design team completed a new organizational structure for that department. This resulted in a merger between the CD part and another department, EF, into a new department: GH (see Figure 2).
FIGURE 2 Change project
Old Change New
AB&CD CD + EF GH
EF
Another department, IJ, had interfaces with both the AB&CD and the EF organization. Therefore, for the members of that department, the interfaces would be impacted as they would have interfaces with the newly created GH department in the future – rather than with the two former departments. Appendix A provides a detailed description of the research site and the change project.
12 the managers were change recipients as well. The role of these managers precisely reflects the observation of Balogun and Johnson (2004, p.543) that “They have the challenge of grasping
a change they did not design and negotiating the details with others equally removed from the strategic decision making”. The fourth group consisted of the people who are impacted by the
change so that their job activities change.
In this research, the managers – the third group as described above – were considered as change agents. The employees were approached as change recipients because they were directly influenced by the change. The research consists of three cases. Every case was comprised of one change agent and three employees with whom they directly communicated about the change, so 12 individuals were included in total.
The study includes three cases as recommended by Eisenhardt (1989), so an embedded case design is applied (Yin, 2003). The individual cases were described in Table 1 (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997, Paré, 2002) and replication logic was used (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). The latter means that the cases were treated independently, where each can confirm or disconfirm the conceptual insights that emerge (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Paré, 2002). That was done by using a standard questionnaire and interview format. Interviews always evolve naturally so that the sequence of the questions changed or questions were added to probe or get deeper into an answer. However, the basis was the same because that will allow for systematic comparison.
Data collection and respondents
Procedure. Data were collected through the use of questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. The output from the questionnaires was used as input for the interviews. In other words, the questionnaires were not meant to be statistically analyzed or assessed otherwise, they were only meant as a trigger to provoke a conversation about the change recipients‟ reactions. A structure where questionnaires are used together with interviews is recommended by several authors (e.g. Jick, 1979; Mintzberg, 1979; Patton, 1999). Cases were chosen on the basis of theoretical sampling, as recommended by Eisenhardt (1989) and Paré (2002). The goal of sampling in such a manner is to “choose cases which are likely to replicate or extend
13 TABLE 1
Overview per case
Case code
Geographical
region Impact of the change Case context
1 Europe Low, as there where less than ten jobs that had to be discussed, and only two of them would be impacted.
This company location was also going through another reorganization, so the interviewees were dealing with two changes simultaneously.
2 Africa Medium, as there where less than ten jobs that had to be discussed, but almost all of them would be impacted and internal politics were difficult.
The change recipients had known the change agent for quite a while, since he had worked with them in the same country before.
3 Europe High, as there were more than 30 jobs that had to be discussed, and many of them would be impacted.
In this country, several teams in several locations had to be discussed, among which ad-hoc teams. That made the evaluation of the jobs more difficult than in other countries, where there was only one team for which it was straightforward what its members were doing.
To create a broad basis of data, it was attempted to choose cases that were different in terms of number of impacted people and possible influence of politics on the change project. One case concerned a country where the change affected a relatively small number of people and was likely to be implemented smoothly because the organization was straightforward and the content of the jobs was clear to the people involved. The second case is a country where the impact was relatively small, but where internal politics could have a big influence and the third case was from a country where the impact in terms of number of people affected was high.
14 it was emphasized that the information provided would be used for the purpose of this study only to ensure that the respondents would feel free to speak their mind, and would not give socially desired answers out of fear to be reprimanded or viewed differently by colleagues. Background information on the cases, change agents and change recipients is provided in Table 2.
Questionnaires. The questionnaires distributed among the change recipients contained items for each component of reactions to change – the affective, cognitive, and intentional component – based on extant literature (Oreg, 2006). The items were different for agents and recipients. For the change recipients, the questionnaire contained items for all three components of reactions. However, for the change agents the questionnaire contained only the items for the intentional component. Also, the form was altered so that the change agents were asked to what extent they think the change recipients would agree. The affective and cognitive components were left out, since it is difficult for change agents to tell how change recipients feel or what they believe. Appendices B and C show the questionnaires for the change agents and change recipients, respectively.
They expressed that they were happy with the change and asked how they could support. After every vignette, the change agent was asked how they felt about the reactions, how they would respond and to what extent they recognized these responses. In this way, the questions assess the attitude of the change agent towards certain reactions. The interviews for the change recipients were structured similarly to those for the change agents. The same stories were presented, but the recipients were asked to describe how they thought the change agent
would feel about those reactions; how the change agent would respond, and so on. In that
manner, a bilateral perspective on the change agent‟s attitude towards resistance was formed. A bilateral perspective is useful, because if two different groups describe the same situation, a better picture of the situation is provided and mono-method bias is avoided (Oreg et al., 2011). Also, it is likely that these actors have diverse understandings of the factors under investigation, as they have for instance different roles, responsibilities, and experiences. Moreover, if there is (relative) agreement between the change agent and the change recipients about their perception of the factors under investigation, the validity of the study is higher (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002). Even though this dual description of the same factors does not provide a „true‟ picture of the change agent‟s attitude and the change recipients‟ reactions, it does increase the extent to which these elements can be assessed as „true‟ as both mono-method bias and self-report bias are decreased (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002).
The second part of the interview contained specific questions about the current change project, as well as questions based on the questionnaire to investigate what affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions the change agent thought the change recipients had. The change recipients were also asked to describe the current change project and their reactions to it, again to gain a bilateral perspective. The interviews were taped and transcribed so that they could be coded in the data analysis stage. Appendices D and E describe the interviews, which include the vignettes.
Data analysis
17 (Paré, 2002; Rowlands, 2005). An extract of the coding scheme is provided in Table 3 and Appendix F includes the complete coding scheme. During the coding process, codes were added, altered, or deleted (Rowlands, 2005). Data tables and displays form another element (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Paré, 2002), as well as a chronological log of the data collection process (see Appendix G) (Paré, 2002).
To determine what would be labeled as a positive attitude towards resistance and what would be labeled as a negative attitude towards resistance, a structured approach was used. The change recipients‟ reactions in the first vignette represented resistance. So when the change agent then used positive words or phrases such as “good”, “harness the resistance by
finding better ways”, “empathy” or reversed negative words or phrases such as “I wouldn‟t feel anger or negativity”, the change agent‟s attitude towards resistance was seen as positive.
However, if the change agent‟s attitude was described with negative words or phrases such as
“concerning”, “I wouldn‟t feel good”, “unhelpful”, “anxious”, “negative”, “afraid” and “vulnerable”, their attitude towards resistance was labeled as negative. In the second vignette,
where the imaginary recipients did not show any reaction at all, the coding was opposite to the coding in the first vignette: when change agents used positive words or phrases to describe their attitude towards getting no reactions, that was seen as a negative attitude towards resistance, because they preferred such reactions over the negative reactions in vignette one. However, if the interviewees used negative words or phrases to describe their attitude towards the situation in vignette two, that was labeled as a positive attitude towards resistance, as they preferred having some kind of reactions; rather negative than none. Vignette three was then meant to let the interviewees talk about how often the very positive responses were encountered in comparison with the responses in vignette one and two, and to dig somewhat deeper into the attitude towards the reactions, as the positive reactions completed the scale of possible reactions.
Replication logic and representing evidence underlying a certain constructs in tables (tabular display) (Miles & Huberman, 1984; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Rowlands, 2005; Yin, 1999) were used to identify one or more propositions. This way, underlying theoretical reasons for any possible relationship were found, which increases the validity of the research. It is an iterative process, going back and forth in the cases as new insights emerged, as Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) recommended in their study on continuous change. Predicted concepts were ensured not to preclude or contradict one another (Lee, 1989).
18 more testable propositions on the subject. As in any research, the main aim is to strive for inter-subjective agreement (Swanborn 1996; van Aken et al., 2012). Since there is no universal truth, this agreement is the best that we can aim for.
TABLE 3
Extract of coding scheme Change agent‟s attitude towards resistance
Code: Attitude positive (the change agent has a positive attitude towards resistance)
2CA I understand where they come from. (About the negative reactions of 2CR1 and 2CR3) 2CR3 […] he would handle it with a lot of empathy.
Code: Attitude negative (the change agent has a negative attitude towards resistance)
2CA I‟d feel challenged. Probably anxious in the first instance.
2CR3 He would be quite concerned. (About the negative reactions in vignette one) Change agent‟s role in resistance
Code: Role positive (the change agent influences the change recipients’ reactions to be more positive)
3CA I can help overcome resistance.
3CR3 I think they‟ve actually done quite well in reducing the resistance and the worries.
Code: Role negative (the change agent influences the change recipients’ reactions to be more negative)
3CA [I can] perhaps create more resistance.
1CR3 Eh, and I would also say that there‟s been some eh oscillations, variability in some of her behaviors from one meeting to another. Ehm, and that‟s creating confusion within the team. Change recipients‟ reactions to change
Code: Affective positive (the change recipient has a positive affective reaction to the change)
1CR1 Because for me one of the exciting things about this change is that I get to develop a wider skill set.
3CR3 So I think actually so far it has been good.
Code: Affective negative (the change recipient has a negative affective reaction to the change)
1CA […] there was almost an upset reaction […]. (About 1CR3 and 1CR2) 3CR1 Not excited and I have a bad feeling.
19 3CA 3CR1 sees the bigger picture case for change. (3CA about 3CR1)
1CR1 Oh, I think it‟s brilliant. I think we need it.
Code: Cognitive negative (the change recipient has a negative cognitive reaction to the change)
2CA 2CR1 is impacted by it and disagrees with the change. 1CR3 [..] what a waste of money and time.
Code: Intentional positive (the change recipient has a positive intentional reaction to the change)
3CA I‟ve been very impressed with the way they‟ve conducted themselves with that team in terms of supporting the change. (3CA about 3CR1 and 3CR2)
3CR3 Am I open to the change? Yes I am.
Code: Intentional negative (the change recipient has a negative intentional reaction to the change)
1CA When challenged he wasn‟t really open to discuss it or to see where we were coming from. (About 1CR3)
1CR2 I don‟t talk particularly negatively about the content, but I do speak to some of my colleagues, yeah, up the line and in the line, and say what the ***, this is just, what a mess, what a mess.
Controllability, reliability, and validity
Controllability, reliability, and validity are the quality criteria that provide the basis for inter-subjective agreement (Swanborn, 1996; van Aken et al., 2012; Yin, 2003). Controllability refers to the testability or verifiability of the results and in order to achieve this, the study is described in such a way that another person is able to replicate it (van Aken et al., 2012). This entails a very detailed description of sample collection, data collection, data analysis, and conclusion drawing.
Reliability was maximized by minimizing potential sources of bias (Blumberg et al., 2011; Cooper & Schindler, 2006). First, data triangulation was applied by using questionnaires as well as interviews and moreover, there were several items for one variable in the questionnaire (Yin, 2003). Second, the number of cases was between three and ten (Eisenhardt, 1989) and the number and types of respondents within cases were representative for the situation (van Aken et al., 2012). Third, the interviews were done at different moments of the day and of time, so that it was recognizable which circumstances are common and which are unique (van Aken et al., 2012).
RESULTS
First, a within case analysis is performed, to look for similarities and dissimilarities within the case. This within case analysis has three parts: the change agent‟s attitude towards resistance, the change agent‟s influence on the change recipients‟ reactions and last, the change recipients‟ reactions to the change. After the within case analysis, the cases are compared crosswise: similarities and dissimilarities between the three cases were assessed. Tables 4, 5 and 6 summarize the key points from the interviews per case.
Case 1
Change agent’s attitude. The change agent (1CA) has a mixed attitude towards resistance, with a bias towards the negative side, as the following quote reflects: “well if
clearly wrong decisions are about to be made, or things are going the wrong way, you have to have a little bit of resistance, you have to challenge, ah. At some point you also have to understand the decision has been made so let‟s make the most of it”. She would understand
some challenges on the decision, but she would not keep spending energy on resisting if the change is going to happen anyway. About vignette one, in which resistance occurred, she mentions “it‟s a bit concerning” and “I wouldn‟t feel good about it”, which also emphasizes a bias towards the negative side in terms of her attitude towards resistance.
The change recipients share this view, and the third change recipient (1CR3) even thinks that the change agent (1CA) has a fully negative attitude towards resistance. In vignette one, with the negative reactions, the first (1CR1) and second change recipient (1CR2) state that the change agent would have a negative attitude towards these reactions: “I think she‟d be
disappointed having explained it”, “I think she‟d feel frustrated […]” and “I would think she would be fairly defensive based on the few, the few discussions that we had”. The third
change recipient (1CR3), however, does not think she would view these reactions negatively:
“I don‟t think she‟d be too worried. Ehm, I don‟t think she‟d be too worried at all really”. He
explains that he thinks so because these negative reactions are quite common and that the change agent (1CA) would be used to them and would just be pressing on. So, she would expect these reactions, rather than understand and empathize with them. Concerning the second vignette, where the change recipients did not give a reaction at all, the third change recipient (1CR3) states: “This is a bit mean but I think she‟d be very happy. Ehm, she finished
22 would make her happy. That is why the overall perspective of the third change recipient (1CR3) of the change agent‟s (1CA) attitude towards resistance is labeled as negative.
Change agent’s role in reactions. About her own role in either contributing to or reducing resistance, the change agent (1CA) comments that to reduce resistance,
“explanation, explaining why we do something, how we do something, why we do it that way”
is important. However, she states that hat if people still are not willing to work with you, she would just say that it needs to be done: “there is an end there, right, you can‟t continue with
this. They have the responsibility themselves to cope with it”, and that might not necessarily
help in reducing the resistance.
Comparing that with the change recipients‟ view, a similar story unfolds. The first change recipient (1CR1) comments “Well for me I thought she definitely was trying to bring
people along with her with was she ehm, could share”, but also says “And I‟m not sure they gave enough time for engagement and communication. Because they were running to a timeline. Not because they didn‟t want to, but they could have pushed back and have said have we given enough time to get people with us”. She thinks that the change agent (1CA)
tries her best, but that she could have done more, even within the boundaries which she was given. The second change recipient (1CR2) comments: “I think it just reinforced, you know,
certainly if I look at myself, it reinforced the view that what people were thinking in the center was really, really disconnected from the reality on the ground”. His comment is more
directed towards „them‟ in the center, rather than towards the change agent (1CA) specifically. The third change recipient (1CR3) comments: “Eh, and I would also say that
there‟s been some eh oscillations, variability in some of her behaviors from one meeting to another. Ehm, and that‟s creating confusion within the team”. From this and other quotes his
view is that the change agent (1CA) increases resistance because valuable input was not used, people without knowledge were making decisions and her behaviors created confusion. Concluding, the spare comments that the change recipients gives on the role of the change agent (1CA) in the resistance that occurred suggest that the change recipients think that the change agent (1CA) increased resistance more than that she reduced it.
23 agent (1CA) thinks that the first change recipient (1CR1) was neutral because she had “a
bigger fish to fry” and because she is interested in maintaining good relationships: “[…] so really not worth upsetting a relationship”. About the second (1CR2) and third change
recipient (1CR3), however, the change agent (1CA) comments that “there was almost an
upset reaction” and “there was almost a, yeah, you know, „stung by a bee moment‟”. In other
words, the feelings that the second (1CR2) and third change recipient (1CR3) have towards the change according to the change agent (1CA) were negative.
The first change recipient in this case (1CR1) has, different from what the change agent thought, more negative feelings than positive feelings towards the change, but that is mainly due to one phone call on which she felt that too many people were involved: “[…] the
one thing about the change that didn‟t work or created some angst, if that‟s, if you know what I mean, is the number of people on the workshop call” and “There were a lot of HR people which made everybody nervous […]”. On the positive side, she says she could probably
develop a wider skill set. Her affective reaction is labeled more negative than positive because she quotes three negative feelings and only one positive feeling. The second change recipient (1CR2) also feels more negative than positive about the change, as expected by the change agent (1CA): “If I see that, then it makes me worry about the alignment at the top, yeah. Do
they really know what they want? Are they seeing eye to eye about this? And that‟s something that I think, I think we‟re slight concerned here”. He also stated that he partly has a bad
feeling about the change because he feels that it is being very poorly managed, even though the intent was good. The affective reactions of the third recipient in case 1 (1CR3) were negative, just as the change agent (1CA) thought. He mentions “I‟m saying that more from
just a frustration you know, come on guys, try to get it right” and used the words “demoralizing” and “disappointing” in other quotes.
Second, the cognitive reactions, or the opinions the change recipients have about the change. The change agent (1CA) thinks that the first change recipient (1CR1) is quite neutral on her opinions on the change. She has something else that worries her more and therefore
“1CR1 was quite pragmatic in saying you know, “well ok, if that‟s what it is, then that‟s what it is, right””. In other words, she states that the first change recipient (1CR1) has a very
rational way of approaching the change from a cognitive point of view. About the second change recipient (1CR2) she has a more balanced view: “[…] he seemed quite reasonable”. However, she thinks that the third change recipient (1CR3) would have quite negative ideas about the change: “[…] with 1CR3 specifically, eh, a little bit more determined and there I‟d
24
strong stance on this”. She explains that she has the feeling that the three change recipients
made a pact beforehand about what stance they would take. She mentioned that the third change recipient (1CR3) sticks most to this pact and therefore does not want to change the current organization.
Whereas the change agent (1CA) thinks that the first (1CR1) and second change recipient (1CR2) are neutral in their cognitive reactions towards the change, the change recipients themselves provide a more detailed story behind their cognitive reactions. They both comment that they have positive ideas or opinions about the content, but negative cognitive reactions on the process. The first change recipient (1CR1) comments: “Oh, I think
it‟s brilliant. I think we need it” and the second change recipient (1CR2) states “I‟m ok with the direction, you know, I have no, like I said before, the direction, I think, you know, the new direction makes more sense than then the previous direction. It‟s got issues as well but I think it makes more sense, in our particular context”. So especially the first change recipient
(1CR1) is pleased with the content of the change, and the second change recipient (1CR2) sees the benefits comparing to what was proposed before. However, these quotes show their opinion about the process of the change: the first change recipient (1CR2) says: “My, I guess
my only objection is around the engagement process. It could have been better. And the bit about the, all these people showing up to this workshop. And almost the feeling of being blindsided by it” and the second (1CR2) “In terms of how it‟s been managed, I think it‟s been managed very poorly. It‟s been taking way too long, it‟s very heavy involvement from the group, ehm, you know, this whole example of this, you know, this rehashing that‟s happened recently, questions this whole thing about how well thought out this is. It‟s just, you know, it‟s very poorly managed I would say as a, as a change. And when something like a change process is poorly managed, yeah, you know, it does influence the perception of the change as we whole”. The change agent (1CA) thinks that the third change recipient (1CR3) has a
negative opinion about the change, and he confirms that with zero positive quotes and as much as 29 negative quotes, for instance “But, you know, I can see already eh, a group of
challenges which are simply going to move one reporting line to another reporting line, and we will not solve them”.
25
feeling that the kind of resistance that could have been there, eroded” but she agrees that the
second change recipient is, in terms of his intentional reactions, more negative than the first change recipient (1CR1). The change agent‟s view of the intentional reactions of the third change recipient in (1CR3) was predominantly negative. Quotes such as “when challenged he
wasn‟t really open to discuss it or to see where we were coming from”, “yeah more stubborn and a little bit more you know, hold on, we‟ve made an agreement here at country level, how dare you challenge it type of thing” and “[…] with 1CR3 I saw a little bit of more sort of digging heels into the sand a bit deeper” show this perspective.
The first change recipient (1CR1) indeed has positive intentional reactions to the change: “So I have tried to pull together 1CR2 and his people and a couple of my people, two
team members, to try and work the integration even before the organization makes a move”.
In other words, she took an initiative to benefit the change. Whereas the change agent thinks the second change recipient (1CR2) is neutral concerning his behavioral reactions, the change recipient himself says he talked negatively about the change to others: “I don‟t talk
particularly negatively about the content, but I do speak to some of my colleagues, yeah, up the line and in the line, and say what the ***, this is just, what a mess, what a mess”. The
third change recipient (1CR3), on the other hand, states he is neutral in his behavioral reactions whereas the change agent (1CA) labels them as negative. He says he did share feedback, but also states “But I would rather, it‟s better to be positive about what‟s, and kind
of embrace what‟s happening because culturally, we‟re not very good when someone points out the facts”. Overall, his behavioral reactions are labelled as neutral.
Summary case 1. Concluding this case, the predominantly negative attitude of the change agent towards resistance is coupled with predominantly negative affective reactions, negative cognitive reactions on the process of the change and some positive cognitive and some negative cognitive reactions on the content of the change, and mixed intentional reactions on the change – positive, neutral and negative. The change agent thinks she rather reduces negative reactions than increases it, whereas the feeling amongst the change recipients leans more towards increasing the resistance: one feels that she both reduces and increases it, the second and third feel that she mainly increases the resistance. Table 4 summarizes case 1.
26 change agent feels that the second change recipient (1CR2) is neutral, whereas the change recipient himself states he talks negatively about the change, and for the third change recipient (1CR3) it is the opposite: the change recipient says to have good intentions, whereas the change agents views his intentions to be negative. A similar observation can be made for the change agent‟s role in the change recipients‟ reactions. The change agent feels she mainly reduced the negative reactions, whereas the change recipients feel she mainly increases them.
TABLE 4 Summary case 1 Change agent’s attitude Change agent’s role in reactions
Change recipients’ reactions
Affective Cognitive Intentional 1CA1 More negative
than positive
Reduces negative reactions, but at some point stops addressing them 1CR21 More negative than positive Increases and reduces negative reactions More negative than positive (neutral)3 Positive on content, negative on process (neutral) Positive (positive) 1CR2 More negative than positive Increases negative reactions More negative than positive (negative) Positive on content, negative on process (neutral) Negative (neutral) 1CR3 Negative Increases negative reactions Negative (negative) Negative (negative) Neutral (negative) 1 CA = change agent 2 CR = change recipient
27 Case 2
Change agent’s attitude. The change agent in case 2 (2CA), has a negative attitude towards resistance, shown by his reaction on the first vignette which described resistant reactions: “I‟d feel challenged. Probably anxious in the first instance”. Furthermore, when asked how he would generally feel about resistance, he states “I think it‟s normal if you meet
with a resistance reaction that you have yourself emotional reaction to that. So that you either become angry, […]” and “You could also feel ehm, ehm, exposed, vulnerable, ehm I‟m trying to find another word. Maybe afraid”. These are clearly negative feelings towards resistance.
On the other hand he comments “I understand where they come from” about the actual negative reactions of two change recipients and “I‟d probably, in that meeting I would say ok
thank you fine, and I‟d probably follow up individually with people” on the non-reactions in
vignette two. However, he does not say to feel empathy or other positive feelings or attitudes towards such reactions.
The third change recipient (2CR3) in this case thinks that the change agent (2CA)
would feel empathetic about the resistance that occurs in vignette one: “[…] he would handle it with a lot of empathy”. However, she also thinks that he would be concerned, which is
considered to be a negative feeling. Upon being asked how the change agent would feel about the negative reactions in vignette one, the second change recipient (2CR2) comments “So, he
takes questions at face value and replies to them at face value” and “Well he doesn‟t communicate in a way which kind of responds empathetically if I must say”. He also thinks
that the change agent would not worry about the non-reactions in vignette two because he would assume them to be true: “[…] he would take it at face value”. The first recipient (2CR1) feels that she cannot comment on this, as she can only describe how she would feel and react herself, rather than describe how the change agent would feel and react.
Change agent’s role in reactions. Concerning his own role in the resistance that occurred, the change agent (2CA) mentions “But how it‟s told and how people are engaged
and eh, I‟m convinced that even when you have tough messages you can still have a good change process where people really respect, feel respected and well-treated and taken care of to the maximum extent possible”. So he thinks he can help reduce resistance. The first change
recipient (2CR1) states “I feel that he had the tendency to engage with people a little bit on a
28 she finds that his behaviors could have contributed to the resistance that occurred. The second change recipient (2CR2) thinks that the change agent cannot really influence the resistance. That is not related to his view of this change agent (2CA), but more to his view of a change agent‟s role in general: “[,,,] well, so how these three organizations work together, the change
agent, you know, clearly has the potential to play a supportive role, should certainly not play a diminishing role. Ehm, but to be honest with you, I think that people will probably, my experience of this is that people will treat a discussion where the change agent is in as not the primary way to resolve issues”. The third change recipient (2CR3) agrees with his view, she
states “Ehm, I think zero” when asked what role she thinks the change agent (2CA) has in the resistance that occurred.
Change recipients’ reactions. The change agent does not comment on how the first and the second change recipient (2CR1 and 2CR2) feel about the change. He does think the third change recipient (2CR3) has negative feelings towards the change: “Ehm, she‟s stressed,
she‟s emotional, ehm, yeah”.
The third change recipient (2CR3) herself tones this observation down: “Ehm. I don‟t
think I‟ve seen anybody that‟s happy” and “I have a bad feeling of the change neither degree nor disagree. Excited, the third, also in the middle. In the middle about upset […]”. In other
words, she is neutral on whether she has all those feelings, but also clearly states that neither she nor anybody else is happy about it. So she leans more towards the negative side. The second change recipient (2CR2) has opposite feelings. Upon being asked for confirmation that he is looking forward to it because it might reduce the interfaces that he has and it might make coordination easier he responded: “That captures it really well”. However, on the other hand he has a bad feeling about possible resistance in other areas: “[…] there would be a fair
amount of, there may be some business resistance. So I guess that would be a bad feeling in terms of the change”. The first change recipient (2CR1) has negative feelings about the
change, although these feelings are somewhat less negative than before: “So I feel better
about it now” and “I‟m not particularly stressed about it. Anymore”, but complements that
with “[…] one of the reasons I‟ve been unhappy about is because there‟s been very little
consultation and everybody knows what they‟re talking about, the whole process is run by very little content knowledge” and “No I was very stressed when we first heard about thin, when we heard about the principles. Yeah I felt really very angry and upset”. Therefore, her
29 Concerning the cognitive reactions, the change agent (2CA) feels better equipped to give his view. He comments that he thinks that both the first (2CR1) and the third change recipient (2CR3) have negative opinions and ideas about the change: “2CR1 is impacted by it
and disagrees with the change”, “Fundamentally she believes that it is wrong to put CD into EF. (About 2CR1)”, “[…] she‟s used to work in, within the business and very close to the business and moving to EF and having somebody else outside the business that she reports into is not ehm, I think for her an ideal solution. (About 2CR3)”, and “[…] they don‟t buy into the business case. Ehm, and they don‟t see the receiving organizational home as a good link to the professional work that they have been doing. (About 2CR1 and 2CR3)”. Further, he
thinks that the second change recipient (2CR2) has a rather neutral view: “2CR2 is not
impacted so he doesn‟t really care”.
The second change recipient‟s ideas and opinions on the change, however, are positive: “I think there‟s one less coordination to be concerned about” and “I think I‟m open
to the improvement”. The change agent has the same perspective on the cognitive reactions of
the first (2CR1) and third change recipient (2CR3) as the change recipients themselves: they are negative. The first change recipient has more than ten negative comments concerning her ideas and opinions on the change. Examples are “So it was, and it caused a lot of mistrust
ehm, it‟s been very long and value destroying and trust losing process, I think”, “I‟m not sure whether it‟s going to be an improvement at all, I don‟t really understand what was broken”, “I don‟t think that‟s going to result in an improvement in the way we manage CD” and “I don‟t think it was a wise decision, I don‟t think it was handled well. The only positive opinion
was: “However, if you believe what our leaders say about reforming an entirely new
department called GH then, if that really happens, a genuine merger with new people in new leadership roles then maybe, maybe that‟s a good thing”, which displays a lot of mistrust.
Therefore, she clearly has negative cognitive reactions to the change. The same is concluded about the third change recipient (2CR3), although she was more prudent in expressing her concerns: “[…] everything that I‟ve build up up to now, is actually being eroded and I‟ve no
input into how that‟s going to be continued, you know” and “And it was very difficult to try and understand […]” are two of the quotes that express her negative opinion. Further, she
partly agrees that the change would harm the way things are done in the organization.
The change agent (2CA) states that the first change recipient (2CR1) has negative behavioral reactions towards the change: “[…] tries to protect in a sense her ehm, discipline,
to say well some of this actually, does not need to move”, “[…] she‟s trying to be protective”,
30
the most minimal impact on her discipline”. Further, he states that the second change
recipient (2CR2) does not have any reactions or intended reactions and that he does not know about the third change recipient‟s reactions.
The first change recipient (2CR1) herself, however, comments that she did not intend any negative behaviors at all: “I‟m a fairly senior leader in this field and I am not going to try
to sabotage it, and I‟m not going to try to you know, stand up and protest against it, that would be inappropriate in my role and I wouldn‟t do that” and “[...] so I wouldn‟t stand up and protest, I wouldn‟t sabotage [...]”. As she does not have any intentions at all, her
behavioral reaction is labeled as none. The second change recipient (2CR2) completely agrees with the view that the change agent had about his behavioral reactions. He „admits‟ to not have taken much initiative, but he certainly does not try to block or hinder the change. It is more that “I just haven‟t been very engaging on it”. The third change recipient (2CR3) has some negative behavioral reactions and some positive behavioral reactions. She comments
“Totally disagree. Ehm. Totally disagree on protest, I complain about the change to colleagues no I don‟t, disagree”, which is considered positive, but also states: “Ehm, I present my objections regarding the change to management, I agree with that. Totally agree with that. And I speak rather highly of the change to others, no I don‟t. I‟d say disagree on that”, which is more negative. Therefore, the label is neutral.
Summary case 2. Concluding case 2, a picture unfolds where the change agent has a negative attitude towards resistance and the affective reactions are mixed: more positive, more negative, and negative. Two of the change recipients have negative cognitive reactions, whereas the other has positive cognitive reactions. The intentional reactions are all neutral or absent. Concerning the change agent‟s role in the resistance that occurred, two of the change recipients think that the change agent does not have any influence on it, the first change recipient feels he increases negative reactions, while the change agent himself thinks he reduces the resistance.
31 affective reactions. Concerning the intentional reactions, the only aligned view concerned the second change recipient. Table 5 summarizes the second case.
TABLE 5 Summary case 2 Change agent’s attitude Change agent’s role in reactions
Change recipients’ reactions Affective Cognitive Intentional 2CA1 Negative Reduces
negative reactions
2CR21 Cannot say Increases negative reactions Negative (cannot say)3 Negative (negative) Neutral (negative)
2CR2 Negative No influence More positive than negative (cannot say) Positive (neutral) None (none)
2CR3 Neutral No influence More negative than positive (negative) Negative (negative) Neutral (cannot say) 1 CA = change agent 2 CR = change recipient
3 The italic text in brackets indicates the perception of the change agent
Case 3
Change agent’s attitude. The change agent (3CA) has a positive attitude towards resistance. When presented with the change recipients‟ negative reactions in the first vignette, the change agent states “[…] I think that these questions people have are perfectly
understandable and justifiable”. He adds “I feel empathy towards their questions. I wouldn‟t feel anger or negativity”. Later in the interview, when asked about his general attitude
towards resistance, the change agent comments “I think resistance is good, actually, because
it actually forces you to think very carefully about why it is you‟re doing things. And actually, you can harness that resistance very creatively by finding better ways to do things”. From
32 resistance in this case is positive, because he sees it as a way to strengthen the case for change and the engagement of the ones involved.
The first change recipient (3CR1) comments that he cannot know what the change agent would feel or think about these negative reactions. The second change recipient (3CR2) thinks that the change agent (3CA) leans more towards the positive attitude towards resistance, as shown by her response on how the change agent would feel about the negative reactions in vignette one: “I think he would feel it as very ehm, eh natural reactions. Natural,
normal reactions”. The third change recipient (3CR3) agrees: “I think he understands the personalities in the team and he has actually looked at opportunities to make it actually work” and “So I think so far they‟ve come across as empathetic, they‟ve come across as you know “we understand the concerns and frustrations and we really want this to be painless and make it work”.
Change agent’s role in reactions. When asked for his role in resistance, the change agent (3CA) comments that he thinks he both reduces and increases resistance: “I can help
overcome resistance and also perhaps create more resistance”. He and the change recipients
are from the same department, and that is why he can relate to some of the concerns that the change recipients have, and that might, according to what he feels, increase the resistance. However, on the other hand, there are also certain elements of the change that he supports or sees that they are going to happen anyway. For the latter areas, he feels that he reduces the resistance that may occur from the change recipients.
The second change recipient (3CR2) feels that the change agent (3CA) has no influence on the reactions that occur: “I think that 3CA actually is quite neutral in that
perspective. In terms of initiating response. One way or the other”. The third change recipient
(3CR3), however, feels that the change agent reduces the resistance. She comments “I think
he‟s actually done quite well in reducing the resistance and the worries”. She feels that way
because the change agent and his team come across as empathetic, addressing concerns and frustrating, not being judgmental, and being sensitive to people‟s worries, fears and concerns.
Change recipient’s reactions. The change agent (3CA) thinks that both the first (3CR1) and the second change recipient (3CR2) have predominantly negative feelings about the change. About the second change recipient he comments “in her heart she doesn‟t buy in
33 The first change recipient (3CR1) confirms that he has negative affective reactions about the change: “Not excited and I have a bad feeling”, “So I think what contributes to the
overall feeling of this as a negative change […]” and “I feel that eh, you know, I get a plate in front of my nose that I have to accept and eat”, and one slightly more positive quote: “I have to look at it from an unbiased perspective as far as I can. So why should I get upset about it. Also it doesn‟t really, I mean, it doesn‟t really affect me that much personally or therefore maybe emotionally”. Therefore, the overall label for his affective reactions is
negative. Whereas the change agent thinks she would have negative feelings, the second recipient (3CR2) states she does not have any feelings regarding the change project because the impact was still unclear: “So I‟m keen to understand what the change is and you know,
I‟m keen to be part of that change and help to make it work even better than it does at the moment. But there hasn‟t been enough information or you know, it‟s been in a bit of limbo for a long time”. Where the change agent (3CA) does not know how the third change recipient
felt about the change, she says she feels positive about the change: “So I think actually so far
it has been good” and “I said I was looking forward to the change but looking forward meaning, you know, I‟m hopeful it will be good”.
The change agent (3CA) comments on the cognitive reactions of the first two change recipients. He states that the first change recipient (3CR1) has both positive and negative ideas about the change: “3CR1 appreciates the bigger picture issues and is less hung up on
protecting his turve like 3CR2 is” and “on the face of it they don‟t really buy into this”. That
results into a neutral reaction on the cognitive component. However, according to the change agent, the second change recipient has negative ideas or opinions about the change: “she is
hugely resistant to the change because she says “why try to fix something that‟s not broken”
and “she sees that there could be a negative which comes out of this change”.
Whereas the change agent (3CA) suggests that the opinions and ideas that the first change recipient (3CR1) has about the change are both positive and negative, he shows only negative cognitive reactions. An impressive number of 21 negative quotes win over one positive note: that he might have more time for something else now that the scope of his job will be reduced. Examples of the negative quotes are “So I guess in the way that it‟s proposed
34 some negative opinions and ideas about the change. She mentions “So I can, you know, it
makes sense to me” and “You know, we‟re just being told like that CD is moving into the new GH which is, you know, which is fine”. However, she also says “I think what there is scope for, is, you know, what does this actually mean to us, what makes practical sense. But to be honest, we have still to go there, there‟s a long way to go in this. At the moment we‟re just… still talking about FTEs basically and reporting lines” and “They need clarity about what‟s the impact to their job and to their line of business so that they can see how they need to deliver. What needs to change for them what do they need to do differently. And they‟ve not been able to give people those answers”. This again links back to the lack of clarity she
experiences, as she finds the idea in principle fine, but it is unclear what it will look like in the future. The third change recipient (3CR3) has the same ideas about the change: “[…] going
through this current change has been a lot better, there has been a lot more communication, a lot more opportunities for people to voice their concerns, ask questions.”, but on the other
hand: “But I guess I have a bit of worry that different people have different understanding of
the work of this team.”. Therefore, her cognitive reactions are labeled as neutral.
The change agent (3CA) feels that all three change recipients‟ intentional or behavioral reactions were positive. About the third change recipient (3CR3), he suggests she is “reasonably passive”, but that she is open for it. As the change does not impact her much, the interaction with her has been less and she has less concerns. That makes it easier for her to cooperate. The second change recipient (3CR2) states that she did not have many intentional or behavioral reactions, again due to the unclarity. However, he has one positive quote: “So I,
yeah. I mean, so for me I don‟t believe in protesting against something”. The third change
recipient (3CR3) agrees that her intentional reactions are positive: “[…] yes I am very open to
the change because it‟s something that I‟ve been waiting for as well”. She explains that she
participated in several meetings and was invited to sit on a panel to talk about the change, for instance. Therefore, it seems that the third change recipient was much more active than the change agent thought. Still, their perception of the intentional reaction that the third change recipient had was both a positive perception. The first change recipient (3CR1) agrees that his behavioral reactions are positive: “But I wouldn‟t be obstinate, right, that wouldn‟t try to
prevent it since it‟s something that has been asked to happen several times so I mean, yeah, I am cooperative. I will do my best” and “Of course, I mean, yes, I try to make the best of it”.
35 Summary case 3. Concluding case 3, we see that the change agent has a very positive attitude towards resistance and that the reactions are mixed. The affective reactions are positive and negative, the cognitive reactions are negative and neutral, but the intentional reactions are all positive. Whereas the change agent thinks he both increases and reduces the resistance, the change recipients think he reduces it or does not have an influence on it.
Regarding the bilateral perspective in this case, it is notable that there is alignment on the change agent‟s attitude towards resistance and the intentional reactions, whilst the change agent and the change recipients view the other components – the change agent‟s role in the reactions and the affective and cognitive reactions – differently.
TABLE 6 Summary case 3 Change agent’s attitude Change agent’s role in reactions
Change recipients’ reactions Affective Cognitive Intentional 3CA1 Positive Both increases
and reduces negative reactions
3CR21 Cannot say Cannot say Negative (negative)3
Negative (neutral)
Positive (positive)
3CR2 Positive No influence None (negative) Neutral (negative) Positive (positive) 3CR3 Positive Reduces negative reactions Positive (cannot say) Neutral (cannot say) Positive (positive) 1 CA = change agent 2 CR = change recipient
