rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence…. organizational... · in the for-profit...

* Academy of Management Beview2000, Vol. 25, No. 4, 783-794.

RETHINKING RESISTANCE AND RECOGNIZINGAMBIVALENCE: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL

VIEW OF ATTITUDES TOWARD ANORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

SANDY KRISTIN PIDERITCase Western Reserve University

In this article I review studies of resistance to change and advocate new researchbased on a reconceptualization of individual responses to change as multidimen-sional attitudes. A challenging question for research and practice arises: How can webalance the organizational need to ioster ambivalent attitudes toward change and theindividual need to minimize the potentially debilitating effects of ambivalence? Iconclude by highlighting the importance of examining the evolution of employeeresponses to change over time and the need to understand responses to changeproposals that emerge from bottom-up, egalitarian change processes.

Adapting to changing goals and demands hasbeen a timeless challenge for organizations, butthe task seems to have become even more cru-cial in the past decade. In the for-profit sector,global population growth and political shiftshave opened new markets for products and ser-vices at a dizzying pace. To respond to the paceof change, organizations are adopting flatter,more agile structures and more empowering,team-oriented cultures. As status differenceserode, some employees are coming to expectinvolvement in decisions about organizationalchange. Successful organizational adaptation isincreasingly reliant on generating employeesupport and enthusiasm for proposed changes,rather than merely overcoming resistance.

The concept of resistance to change has beenwidely studied, but it has limitations. Both Mer-ron (1993) and Dent and Goldberg (1999) haveargued for retiring the phrase "resistance tochange." The limitations of the concept can beframed in philosophical terms; for instance, crit-ical theorists and labor policy scholars arguethat the interests of managers should not beprivileged over the interests of workers whenstudying organizational change (Jermier,Knights, & Nord, 1994). Alternatively, the limita-tions of the concept can be framed in practical

I gratefully acknowledge the comments of RichardBagozzi, David Deeds, Jane Dutton, Loren Dyck, Phoebe Ells-worth, Eric Neilsen, Mary Grace Neville, Janet Weiss, andthe reviewers and special issue editor on earlier versions ofthis work.

terms; for instance, practical scholars and schol-arly practitioners argue that the concept mighthave outlived its usefulness (Dent & Goldberg,1999; Krantz, 1999). My purpose here is to sum-marize a critique of existing views of resistanceto change and to advocate a view that capturesmore of the complexity of individuals' responsesto proposed organizational changes.

In the first part of the article, I suggest that instudies of resistance to change, researchershave largely overlooked the potentially positiveintentions that may motivate negative re-sponses to change. I also show how studies ofresistance have dichotomized responses tochange and, thus, somewhat oversimplifiedthem. Furthermore, I argue that varied empha-ses in the conceptualization of resistance haveslipped into the literature, blurring our sense ofthe complexities of the phenomenon.

In the second part of the article, I propose amultidimensional view of responses to proposedorganizational changes, capturing employee re-sponses along at least three dimensions (emo-tional, cognitive, and intentional). Within thisview, "resistance to a change" is represented bythe set of responses to change that are negativealong all three dimensions, and "support for achange" is represented by the set of responsesthat are positive along all three dimensions.Responses to a change initiative that are neitherconsistently negative nor consistently positive,which were previously ignored but are poten-tially the most prevalent type of initial response.

783

784 Academy of Management Review October

can be analyzed as cross-dimension ambiva-lence in employees' responses to change.

In the third part of the article, I identify theimplications of this new view for both researchand practice. By highlighting the many othersets of responses that can occur, this new viewshows the importance of ambivalent responsesto change for research on exit, voice, loyalty,and neglect and for research on generatingchange within organizations.

A SYNTHESIS OF PASTCONCEPTUALIZATIONS OFRESISTANCE TO CHANGE

Unfavorable Responses to Change Might BeMotivated by the Best of Intentions

In the majority of work on resistance tochange, researchers have borrowed a view fromphysics to metaphorically define resistance as arestraining force moving in the direction ofmaintaining the status quo (cf. Lewin, 1952). Fur-thermore, most scholars have focused on thevarious "forces" that lead employees away fromsupporting changes proposed by managers. AsWatson (1982) points out, managers often per-ceive resistance negatively, since they see em-ployees who resist as disobedient. And as Jer-mier et al. put it, "The most prevalent way ofanalysing resistance is to see it as a reactiveprocess where agents embedded in power rela-tions actively oppose initiatives by otheragents" (1994: 9). Even if they only see employ-ees who oppose change as short sighted, man-agers are tempted by the language of resistanceto treat their subordinates as obstacles.

Thus, the label of resistance can be used todismiss potentially valid employee concernsabout proposed changes. Of course, for a longtime in the practical literature about managingchange processes, researchers have been advis-ing practitioners to guard against this. For ex-ample, Mary Parker Follett pointed out in the1920s that

we shouldn't put to . . . workers finished plans inorder merely to get their consent one of twothings is likely to happen, both bad: either we shallget a rubber-stamped consent and thus lose whatthey might contribute to the problem in question,or else we shall find ourselves with a fight on ourhands—an open fight or discontent seething under-neath (reprinted in Graham, 1995: 220).

Likewise, Lawrence (1954) warns managers toavoid creating resistance in subordinates by as-suming that they will always be opposed tochange. In the 1990s others have reissued simi-lar warnings (Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Merron,1993). A prominent consultant noted that the con-cept of resistance to change "has been trans-formed over the years into a not-so-disguisedway of blaming the less powerful for unsatisfac-tory results of change efforts" (Krantz, 1999: 42).

This tendency to dismiss employees' objec-tions to change simply may be another manifes-tation of the fundamental attribution error (Jones& Harris, 1967); that is, managers in charge ofrolling out a change initiative blame others forthe failure of the initiative, rather than accept-ing their role in its failure. Employees are likelyto do the same thing—assigning blame forfailed change attempts to their managers, ratherthan themselves. However, as Klein (1976) andThomas (1989) argue, in most research on resis-tance to change, researchers have taken the per-spective of those in charge of implementingchange, and so scholars have written less aboutthe perspectives of those with less power. Per-haps scholars, as well as practitioners, need tobe cautioned against playing the blame gameunwittingly.

Fortunately, in other types of literature—notyet well integrated into research on resistanceto change—scholars also remind us of a widerrange of reasons why employees may oppose aproposed organizational change. For instance,research on obedience to authority indicatesthat resistance might be motivated by individu-als' desires to act in accordance with their eth-ical principles (Milgram, 1965; Modigliani &Rochat, 1995). Similarly, the organizational dis-sent literature shows that some employee resis-tance to organizational actions is motivated bymore than mere selfishness (Graham, 1984,1986). Also, recent studies of issue selling (Ash-ford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Dutton,Ashford, Wierba, O'Neill, & Hayes, 1997) indicatethat employees might try to get top managementto pay attention to issues that employees be-lieve must be addressed in order for the organi-zation to maintain high performance.

Rarely do individuals form resistant attitudes,or express such attitudes in acts of dissent orprotest, without considering the potential nega-tive consequences for themselves. This point isdocumented in several studies. In the field of

2000 Pideiit 785

ethics, for instance, Clinard (1983) documentsthe "pressures on middle management," such asthreats to their opportunities for advancement orto their job security, that can discourage man-agers from speaking up about ethical concerns.Meyerson and Scully (1995) dramatize the dilem-mas faced by change agents when judging howfar they can stretch those they wish to lead.Rodrigues and Collinson (1995) analyze the dif-ferent ways in which Brazilian employees usehumor to "camouflage and express their dis-sent" (1995: 740), as well as the times when cam-ouflage was powerful (and the conditions underwhich more acerbic satire was used). Thus, friv-olous expression of resistance seems unlikely,since individuals who engage in it could facesevere penalties and are aware that they shouldtread lightly.

Hence, what some may perceive as disre-spectful or unfounded opposition might also bemotivated by individuals' ethical principles orby their desire to protect the organization's bestinterests. It is worth entertaining efforts to takethose good intentions more seriously by down-playing the invalidating aspect of labeling re-sponses to change "resistant."

Varying Emphases in the Conceptualization ofResistance >

Studies of resistance would also benefit fromcareful attention to the concept's meaning. AsDavidson argues, resistance has come to in-clude

anything and everything that workers do whichmanagers do not want them to do, and that work-ers do not do that managers wish them to do....resort to such an essentially residual category ofanalysis can easily obscure a multiplicity of dif-ferent actions and meanings that merit more pre-cise analysis in their own right (1994: 94).

A review of past empirical research revealsthree different emphases in conceptualizationsof resistance: as a cognitive state, as an emo-tional state, and as a behavior. Although theseconceptualizations overlap somewhat, they di-verge in important ways. Finding a way to bringtogether these varying emphases shoulddeepen our understanding of how employeesrespond to proposed organizational changes.

Portraying resistance in terms of behavior hasbeen common since the earliest work on thetopic. In his early theorizing, Lewin (1952) de-

fined resistance by using a metaphor from thephysical sciences. In their classic study Cochand French (1948) focused on the undesirablebehaviors of workers in response to manage-ment-imposed changes in jobs and work meth-ods. With their quasi-experiment they examinedwhether encouraging employee participation inplanning a change would reduce resistance. Al-though their conceptual discussion indicatedthat resistance could involve undesirable be-haviors and/or aggression, their measures fo-cused on neither. Instead, the criterioh they usedto compare the treatment and control groupswas desirable behavior, in the form of compli-ance with the production rate standards set bymanagement. (While strict compliance with therate standards may or may not have been ac-companied by undesirable behaviors or aggres-sion, this possibility could not have been cap-tured in the measures reported.) This studygenerated a large body of work on the effects ofparticipative decision making (see McCaffrey,Faerman, & Hart, 1995, for a recent review).

More recent studies of resistance also havefocused on behavior. For instance, Brower andAbolafia (1995) define resistance as a particularkind of action or inaction, and Ashforth andMael (1998) define resistance as intentional actsof commission (defiance) or omission. Similarly,Shapiro, Lewicki, and Devine (1995) suggest thatwillingness to deceive authorities constitutesresistance to change, and Sagie, Elizur, andGreenbaum (1985) use compliant behavior asevidence of reduced resistance.

In contrast, other scholars have described re-sistance in emotional terms. For example, Cochand French (1948) acknowledged a more emo-tional component of resistance (aggression), andin their preliminary theory of resistance de-scribed the forces that they believed producedfrustration in employees and caused the unde-sirable behaviors. Similarly, Vince and Brouss-ine (1996) surfaced the responses of managers inpublic service organizations to a period ofchange in structure and financial constraints.They found that managers' responses were oftenparadoxically emotional. And, finally, the ideasof frustration and anxiety underpin Argyris andSchon's (1974, 1978) perspective that resistancearises from defensive routines. The approachthat they advocate emphasizes the role of anexternal consultant in surfacing the defensive-ness inherent in those routines, finding ways to


minimize or dissipate the anxiety that reinforcesthose routines, and making time for calmer con-sideration of how to repair them (Argyris, 1993).As Diamond (1986) points out, although the rem-edy for resistance that they recommend involvesa cognitive realignment of resistors' espousedtheories and their theories-in-use, the underly-ing nature of resistance is portrayed as highlyemotional.

The idea that resistance can be overcome cog-nitively suggests that it may include a compo-nent of negative thoughts about the change.Watson (1982) suggests that what is often la-beled as resistance is, in fact, only reluctance.Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) defineresistance in behavioral terms but suggest thatanother state precedes it: a cognitive state theycall "(un)readiness." A reinterpretation of theCoch and French quasi-experiment (Bartlem &Locke, 1981) suggests that participation mighthave motivational and cognitive effects on re-sistance to change, also implying that cognitionis part of the phenomenon of resistance.

Each of these three emphases in conceptual-izations of resistance—as a behavior, an emo-tion, or a belief—has merit and represents animportant part of our experience of responses tochange. Thus, any definition focusing on oneview at the expense of the others seems incom-plete. Therefore, rather than privilege one con-ceptualization over the others, I seek to integratethe three alternative views of resistance tochange.

A NEW VIEW OF RESPONSES TO CHANGE:AMBIVALENT ATTITUDES

These three emphases in the conceptualiza-tion of resistance to change can be reframed ina more integrative way by borrowing the con-cept of attitude from social psychology. Mindfuladaptation of the concept might be required,because the research on attitudes does not al-ways provide clear guidance about which di-mensions of attitudes are most salient.

Multiple Dimensions of Attitudes

Early attitude theorists (Katz, 1960; Rosenberg& Hovland, 1960) argued that attitudes are struc-tured along three dimensions that roughly cor-respond with the three definitions that havedominated research on resistance to change. I

label these three dimensions of attitudes thecognitive, emotional, and intentional. This con-ception is known as the tripartite view of atti-tudes (Ajzen, 1984).

In this view the cognitive dimension of anattitude refers to an individual's beliefs aboutthe attitude object. In their review of the litera-ture on the tripartite view, Eagly and Chaikendefine this dimension as follows: "beliefs ex-press positive or negative evaluation of greateror lesser extremity, and occasionally are exactlyneutral in their evaluative content" (1998: 271).The emotional dimension of an attitude refers toan individual's feelings in response to the atti-tude object. Eagly and Chaiken define this di-mension as the "feelings, moods, emotions, andsympathetic nervous-system activity that peo-ple have experienced in relation to an attitudeobject and subsequently associate with it" (1998:272).

The third dimension of attitudes is the mostcomplex and controversial, both because insome studies researchers find evidence of onlytwo dimensions and because others who find athird dimension label it inconsistently. The find-ings of past empirical studies of the tripartiteattitude structure are mixed (e.g., Bagozzi, 1978;Breckler, 1984; Kothandapani, 1971), and as Ea-gly and Chaiken conclude, "Evidence supportsthe empirical separability of three classes ofevaluative responses under some but certainlynot all circumstances" (1993: 13). In the tradi-tional tripartite view, the conative dimension ofan attitude reflects an individual's evaluationsof an attitude object that are based in past be-haviors and future intentions to act. Some re-searchers place more emphasis on past behav-iors, whereas others focus on future intentions.In some cases a separate attitude dimensionconcerning intentions or behavior has beenidentified, but in other cases intentions are soloosely connected with other dimensions of atti-tudes that they have been treated as entirelyseparate constructs.

In the context considered here, because anemployee facing a newly proposed organization-al change is responding to a novel event, theconative dimension is more likely to reflect in-tentions than past behaviors. (The employeemight not find the change process particularlynovel, but the specific proposal is likely to havesome novel aspects.) Also, it seems more desir-able in this applied context to treat behavior as

2000 Pideiit 787

a separate construct so that the mutual influ-ences of attitudes and behavior on one anotherare not buried in an already complex set ofissues. In other words, it is useful to distinguishbetween an intention to resist at the attitudinallevel and dissent or protest at the level of actualbehavior, which might or might not be planned.By "an intention" I mean a plan or resolution totake some action, rather than a plan to try toachieve some goal (Bagozzi, 1992).

Much of the work on resistance in labor pro-cess theory (e.g., Jermier et al., 1994), as well assome recent work on extrarole behaviors, suchas taking charge (e.g., Morrison & Phelps, 1999),focuses on dissent or protest, whether inten-tional, habitual, or spontaneous. Distinguishingbetween intention and behavior will allow morecareful study of the connections between thetwo concepts. Whether the intentional dimen-sion is sufficiently associated with individuals'cognitive and emotional responses to be treatedas a dimension of an employee's attitude re-mains an empirical question in the context of anattitude about a proposed organizationalchange.

One remaining contentious question in atti-tude research concerns the causal relationshipsamong the dimensions. Fiske and Pavelchak(1986) label the two dominant positions in thedebate the "piecemeal" and "category-based"views. In the piecemeal view, advanced byscholars such as Zanna and Rempel (1988), it isposited that variations in evaluation along theparticular dimensions of an attitudinal responsewill cause variations in global attitude. In thecategory-based view (Ajzen, 1984; Davis & Os-trom, 1984), the global attitude is viewed as pri-mary; changes in the global evaluation are mod-eled as causes of variation in the cognitive,emotional, and intentional dimensions, ratherthan as results of variation in those dimensions.Unfortunately, these views are still the subjectof continuing debate in social psychology, andcompeting interpretations and new data are stillbeing advanced.

In summary, questions of how the multipledimensions of employee responses to changeshould be defined—and how they are related toone another—remain open to further clarifica-tion through empirical research. Social psycho-logical research, however, clearly supports amultidimensional view of attitudes that can beused to integrate the inconsistent definitions of

resistance that have been found in organization-al studies. Thus, an employee's response to anorganizational change along the cognitive di-mension might range from strong positive be-liefs (i.e., "this change is essential for the or-ganization to succeed") to strong negativebeliefs (i.e., "this change could ruin the compa-ny"). An employee's response along the emo-tional dimension might range from strong posi-tive emotions (such as excitement or happiness)to strong negative emotions (such as anger orfear). An employee's response along the inten-tional dimension might range from positive in-tentions to support the change to negative inten-tions to oppose it.

The Possibility of Ambivalence in Response toa Particular Change Proposal

One key benefit of using this multidimen-sional definition to describe employees' atti-tudes toward proposed changes is that concep-tualizing each dimension as a separatecontinuum allows for the possibility of differentreactions along the different dimensions. Insome cases this might only mean that beliefsabout a proposed change are more positive thanemotional responses to the change. However,with this definition we also recognize the possi-bility, in other cases, of ambivalent attitudes,where two alternative perspectives are bothstrongly experienced (Foy, 1985; Merton, 1976;Thompson, Zanna, 8f Griffin, 1995).

The simplest case of ambivalence to imagineis the case in which an individual's cognitiveresponse to a proposed change is in conflictwith his or her emotional response to the pro-posal. Furthermore, ambivalence within a di-mension is also possible, and, in fact, ambiva-lence within the emotional dimension alreadyhas been reported in research. In particular,Russell (1980) and Watson, Clark, and Tellegen(1988) have presented data suggesting that pos-itive and negative affect can co-occur. Similarly,Vince and Broussine's (1996) study of public ser-vice managers' responses to change shows thatincongruent emotions, such as excitement andfear, are often experienced simultaneously.

In principle, ambivalence could occur withinthe cognitive or intentional dimensions as well.For instance, an employee exhibiting cognitiveambivalence might simultaneously believe thatthe change proposed in his or her organization


is necessary for its future survival but is not yetsufficiently well researched. An employee ex-hibiting intentional ambivalence might plan tooppose a proposed change through anonymouscomments in the suggestion box but might sup-port the change in public because of uncertaintyabout how top management will respond to crit-icism of the change initiative. Although re-search does not shed any light on the likelihoodof intentional ambivalence, anecdotal evidenceof its occurrence can be found; Drummond's(1998) case study of a site manager's indirectopposition to the proposed closure of his facilityhas similar elements.

The Prevalence of Ambivalent Attitudes

The following examples of employees' re-sponses to organizational change, drawn frominterviews,' also illustrate the merits of assess-ing their attitudes toward change along threedimensions. In the first example an employeehad learned that his budget for offering incen-tives to his distributors was disappearing. Hisemotional response to the announcement wasquite negative. Because the budget cut was an-nounced late in his planning cycle, the an-nouncement shocked and frustrated him. How-ever, he also reported a positive cognitiveresponse to the change: he believed the changewould have positive effects, since the budget forproduct improvements was being increased toallow his distributors to offer their customers amore attractive product. Thus, this employee'sresponse represents dn example of an ambiva-lent attitude toward the proposed budgetchange, because of the incongruity between hiscognitive and emotional responses to the pro-posal.

A second example comes from an interviewwith a middle manager in a large, diversifiedcompany, who described his response to the re-structuring and centralization of his organiza-

' To illustrate how the tripartite definition of attitudescould be used to describe employees' responses to organi-zational changes, I collected stories about employees' reac-tions to recently proposed changes in their organization. Iconducted seven interviews with professionals and five withmanagers. The interviewees had varied functional back-grounds, and they described their reactions to three types oforganizational changes (updating work processes, develop-ing new initiatives, and restructuring). The interview proto-col appears in Piderit (1999).

tion around a new enterprise-wide software sys-tem. His initial reaction to the restructuringincluded positive beliefs, because he felt thechange was sorely needed, as well as positiveemotions, reflected in expressions of enthusi-asm. However, he reported increasingly nega-tive intentions over time, and he planned tochallenge his leadership to cancel the project ifthey would not provide the support that wasneeded. He later spoke out against the dangersof the "behemoth project." Although he still be-lieved the change was needed, he was discour-aged by his coworkers' lack of commitment.Thus, this manager's initial attitude can be rep-resented as initially supportive, but it evolved toa more ambivalent state as his negative inten-tions solidified and his negative emotions to-ward his coworkers' laxity emerged.

The third example is drawn from an interviewwith a consultant who learned that his firm wasmerging with another consulting company. Heinitially responded with a combination of ex-citement and fear, demonstrating ambivalencewithin the emotional dimension of his responseto the change. In his case that ambivalence mo-tivated his efforts to gather information aboutthe rationale for the merger and to assess thelikelihood of job cuts in conjunction with it. Al-though he was not comfortable discussing thechange with his superiors, because he did notwant to reveal his fears and appear insecure, heand his peers were able to reassure each otherthrough their surreptitious information gather-ing that the rationale for the merger was toacquire consulting skills in markets that hisoriginal firm had not already entered. As a re-sult, he became an active supporter of themerger later on.^

In addition to this anecdotal evidence, there isalso a theoretical reason to expect that mostemployees' responses to a proposed change willinvolve some ambivalence. We know from atti-tude research that the process of attitude forma-tion often begins with ambivalence (e.g..

^ These three employees' descriptions of their reactions tochange were typical of the reactions reported in interviews,since most of the interviewees described their reactions tothe organizational changes that they faced in terms of a mixof positive and negative thoughts, emotions, and behavioralintentions. Four of the twelve interviewees reported endur-ing ambivalence in response to the change they faced, andanother five interviewees reported initial ambivalence.

2000 Piderit 789

Thompson et al., 1995). Furthermore, within thetypology of alpha, beta, and gamma change, aninitial response that is uniformly negativeseems possible only in response to alphachanges, which involve a "variation in the levelof [a] state, given a constantly calibrated mea-suring instrument" (Golembiewski, Billingsley,& Yeager, 1976: 134). Because some employeeswill already have formed an attitude toward thecurrent point, they may be able to infer theirattitude toward the proposed shift immediately.

However, as Beer and Walton (1987) point out,beta change involves developing a new under-standing of what constitutes a shift on the refer-ence dimension (or a "variation in the level of [a]state, complicated by the fact that some inter-vals of the measurement continuum . . . havebeen recalibrated," according to Golembiewskiet al. [1976: 134]). For example, a team trained indialectic decision making might come to rede-fine what is meant by "too much conflict" in itsmeetings. Given the more complex process in-volved in making sense of a change proposalthat involves such a recalibration, it seems un-likely that employees' inferences about their at-titude toward a change proposal, such as theproposal to engage in a structured decision-making process, could be immediate.

Similarly, the gamma change process, whichinvolves "a complete conceptual redefinition"(Beer & Walton, 1987: 342) and which may in-volve either the addition of new dimensions orthe complete replacement of old reference di-mensions with new ones (Porras & Silvers, 1991:57), is even more complex. Thus, when facingbeta or gamma change, employees seem morelikely to engage in the formation of a new atti-tude, rather than simply shift their old attitudealong a stable dimension. It seems reasonableto assume that most employees' initial re-sponses to a beta or gamma change will beambivalent.

For these reasons I conclude that conceptual-izing employees' responses to proposed organi-zational changes as multidimensional attitudespermits a richer view of the ways in which em-ployees may respond to change. Because of thepotential for a multidimensional view of re-sponses to change to inspire future research insuch directions, I join Dent and Goldberg (1999)and Merron (1993) in arguing that we shouldretire the phrase "resistance to change," and Iadvocate a new wave of research on employee

responses to change, conceptualized as multidi-mensional attitudes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCHAND PRACTICE

There are five key implications of this alter-native view for research and practice. First, amultidimensional view of responses to proposedchange may enhance our accuracy in predictingemployee behaviors that have been difficult topredict in past research.

For example, understanding exit, voice, loy-alty, and neglect has continued to challengetheorists and empirical researchers (Hirschman,1970; Janssen, de Vries, & Cozijnsen, 1998; Rus-bult, Farrell, Rogers, & Mainous, 1988; Saunders,Sheppard, Knight, & Warshaw, 1992; Withey &Cooper, 1989). One premise that could aid indeveloping such a predictive framework is theidea that employees find it more difficult to ex-press negative emotions than negative beliefs.(This premise is certainly implicit in Argyris andSchon's [1974, 1978] work, although some em-ployees may exhibit more facility than others inexpressing their emotions.) From that premise itwould follow that employees would be morelikely to engage in voice than in loyalty or ne-glect when they experience ambivalence withintheir cognitive response to a proposed change.Because they can easily articulate their beliefsabout the change, they would be more likely toshare their reflections with the managers intro-ducing the organizational change. Conversely,employees would be more likely to exhibit ne-glect when ambivalence occurs within the emo-tional dimension of their response to change orwhen an incongruity arises between their cog-nitive and their emotional reactions. Because itis difficult for them to articulate their negativeemotional responses to change, they would bemore likely to wrestle with their ambivalencealone or to avoid the subject entirely.

Similarly, understanding the nature of ambiv-alence in employee responses to change alsomight be useful in predicting the mode in whichemployees will communicate their responses tochange agents and in identifying the most ap-propriate process for addressing their re-sponses. For instance, when employees are ex-periencing emotional ambivalence rather thanuniformly negative responses to a proposedchange, they may be more likely to express their


responses through humor (e.g., Rodrigues & Col-linson, 1995) or other indirect modes of commu-nication (e.g., Drummond, 1998). In such a case,more data about the change initiative might notbe very useful, even if it can be provided effi-ciently in large-scale rollout meetings. Instead,more impromptu and casual conversationsmight be more effective in creating an atmo-sphere in which employees feel safe expressingtheir negative emotional responses openly.

Conversely, when employees are experienc-ing cognitive ambivalence about a proposedchange but no negative emotional responses,they may be quite direct in expressing their con-cerns. In such a case, change agents might findthat their listening ability is more importantthan their ability to communicate their own per-spectives on the change to employees. Oversell-ing the benefits of the change may not be effec-tive in securing employee support, if employeesalready accept that the change will have somepositive outcomes but feel a different perspec-tive is required.

Of course, the merits of these premises areempirical questions, to be examined in futureresearch on predicting employee voice, loyalty,and neglect and in research on the modes inwhich employee responses to change are ex-pressed and managed.

A second key implication of the new multidi-mensional view of employee responses to pro-posed organizational changes is that the degreeof ambivalence in an employee's attitude mayhave both desirable and undesirable conse-quences. Paying attention to balancing thoseconsequences will help us understand how tomanage change processes successfully. A vari-ety of research indicates that divergent opinionsabout direction are necessary in order forgroups to make wise decisions and for organi-zations to change effectively. For instance, re-cent research on institutionalized dissent (Co-hen & Staw, 1998) shows that, sometimes,organizations encourage and plan for dissentand ritualize disagreement. Although the factthat organizations encourage dissent does notnecessarily imply that dissent is functional, it isone reasonable explanation for the prevalenceof such an organizational practice.

Furthermore, research on organizationallearning indicates that disagreement and dis-confirmation of expectations can be importanttriggers for developing knowledge. In fact, Bar-

nett argues that "an emphasis on failure, nega-tive feedback, stress, or 'crisis' as a learningstimulus has eclipsed the potential importanceof other meaningful stimuli (e.g., opportunities,people, and success)" (1994: 8) as conditions thatfoster learning. Similarly, research on strategicchange processes indicates that disagreementcan play a key role in supporting organizationalrenewal. Studies by Barr, Stimpert, and Huff(1992), Burgelman (1991), and Floyd and Wool-dridge (1996) show that if the organization'smanagers do not experiment, it seems unlikelythat they will be able to carry out a renewalprocess. The implication of all this research isthat moving too quickly toward congruent posi-tive attitudes toward a proposed change mightcut off the discussion and improvisation thatmay be necessary for revising the initial changeproposal in an adaptive manner.

It is not clear, however, whether the expres-sion of resistance (i.e., uniformly negative re-sponses to change) is likely to encourage con-tinued discussion, debate, and improvisation.Indeed, the honest expression of ambivalenceseems more likely to generate dialogue than theexpression of either determined opposition orfirm support.

Several research pieces also indicate that am-bivalence and its acknowledgment might havepositive effects. Pratt and Barnett (1997) arguethat ambivalence is needed to stimulate un-learning (the discarding of obsolete and mis-leading knowledge), which is a necessary pre-cursor to change. Similarly, Weigert and Franksargue that the expression of ambivalence inpublic "is likely to lead to public collective re-sponses" (1989: 223), suggesting that acknowl-edging ambivalence can provide a basis for mo-tivating new action, rather than the continuationof old routines. Furthermore, recent research oncreativity indicates that "insight is primarily de-pendent on analogical retrieval.... moreover,this retrieval usually is cued by some externalevent" (Sternberg, 1988: 3). Work by Langley andJones (1988) and by Weisberg (1988) shows thatthe ability to perceive a situation from a differ-ent angle or to apply a novel analogy is oftenthe key to finding a previously unconsideredalternative that may lead to novel behavior. Allthis work suggests that by fostering ambiva-lence and reframing our understanding of thestatus quo, we are better able to generate newpossibilities for understanding and action.

2000 Pideiit 791

For change agents and for theorists, the strat-egy of fostering ambivalence rather than sup-port in the early stages of a change initiativeinvites a different view of how the first stage ofa change process should play out. The firststage in creating change should be generatingwidespread conversation, rather than beginningthe change process by engaging a small groupof managers in identifying the desired changeand later aiming to gain broader employee sup-port for that proposal. This strategy is less con-sistent with a view of change as a planned pro-cess (Porras & Silvers, 1991) and more consistentwith a microlevel perspective on change as acontinuous process in which "ongoing adapta-tion and adjustment" occur (Weick & Quinn,1999: 362). Some models of this type of changeprocess are emerging, such as the trialecticview of change advocated by Ford and Ford(1994) and the five-stage process model of break-away organizations developed by Dyck andStarke (1999). How change agents begin to gen-erate conversation around ambivalence aboutnew possibilities is an important question forfuture research on the first phase of the changeprocess.

Ambivalence, however, must be fostered withcare; we also know from other streams of re-search that acknowledging ambivalence mightnot always be optimal. On the one hand,Weigert and Franks warri that "if ambivalenceis not ritually enacted and meaningfully inter-preted, its power to fuel extreme responsesgrows" (1989: 223). On the other hand, Schwartz(1986) examined the effect of inner dialogue onpersonal and relational well-being and foundthat an inner dialogue characterized by a highratio of positive to negative statements was as-sociated with greater well-being. This findingsuggests that acknowledging both polarities ofan ambivalent attitude toward a change pro-posal with equal time might be unhealthy. Thus,the question that emerges for research and prac-tice concerns the tensions generated by foster-ing ambivalence: How can we balance the needfor ambivalence with the need to limit its debil-itating effects?

A third key implication of the new multidi-mensional view concerns the need to expandour research beyond our past focus on top-downorganizational change. Increasingly, changeprocesses are managed in emergent and demo-cratic ways. However, our theorizing may not be

keeping pace, except in some emerging re-search. For example, in the appreciative inquiryprocess (Cooperrider, 1998; Cooperrider & Sriv-astva, 1987), the proposal emerges from and istempered and repeatedly revised by an inclu-sive dialogue among a large number of employ-ees across many levels of hierarchy. In this ap-proach the important question of what it meansto respond to a "proposed change" is framed,when the nature of the change that is proposedremains ambiguous for much of the process.Here, finding answers to the questions of howmultiple dimensions of an employee's re-sponses to a change evolve over time and howsuch shifts are related to the effectiveness withwhich change is implemented seems even moreimportant.

A fourth implication of these ideas is thatemployee responses to change may evolveover time, and paying attention to this evolu-tion might yield insights about how to managechange initiatives successfully. For example,a formal change announcement from the CEOmay shift employees' cognitive responses to achange quite quickly from negative to posi-tive, but their emotional responses may re-quire more time to shift from negative to pos-itive, through many informal conversationsafter the formal rollout speech. Observing pat-terns of attitudes and ambivalence over timemight be more useful in predicting the successof a change initiative than examining the fa-vorability of employees' attitudes toward thechange at any one point in time. The implica-tion is that both scholars and managers needto pay more attention to the dynamic pro-cesses that help to acknowledge and sustainambivalence without letting it impede the mo-mentum of change.

A final implication of these ideas is that schol-ars who wish to understand the full range ofindividual responses to proposed organization-al changes should assess those responses alongmultiple dimensions. Applied research isneeded to continue the process of mindfullyadapting the concept of tripartite attitudes fromsocial psychology. Relevant methods for opera-tionalizing the dimensions could include inter-views (Piderit, 1998), surveys (Piderit, 1999), andeven more novel approaches, such as drawing(Vince & Broussine, 1996).


CONCLUSION

There is power in metaphor, but the physicalmetaphor of "resistance to change" may havetaken us as far as we can go. In this article Icritiqued research on resistance to change forfailure to take the good intentions of resistorsseriously and for the varying emphases in con-ceptualizations of resistance. I proposed a newconception of responses to proposed organiza-tional changes as multidimensional attitudes.This new conception is intended to encouragean appreciation for the prevalence of ambiva-lence in individuals' responses to change. Inves-tigations of what motivates those responses tochange also will be needed, as well as studiesof both the positive and the negative conse-quences of ambivalence of different types.

These ideas are not all new to the field, butearlier admonitions about the benefits of em-ployee input and the drawbacks of dismissingsubordinates' responses to change were not con-sistently brought to center stage in organizationstudies. If we can do better, we will be able tooffer guidance to all employees involved inchange processes and not just to change agentswith official authority. Our research will beginto give equal attention to top-down, plannedchange and to bottom-up or egalitarian changeprocesses. Finally, we will take on the challengeof helping organization members reap the ben-efits of ambivalence toward change for organi-zations while minimizing its potentially stress-ful effects for individuals.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. 1984. Attitudes. In R. J. Corsini (Ed.), WiJey encycJo-pedia of psychology, vol. 1: 99-100. New York: Wiley.

Ajzen, I. 1987. Attitudes, traits, and actions: Dispositionalprediction of behavior in personality and social psychol-ogy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental so-cial psychology, vol. 20:1-63. New York: Academic Press.

Argyris, C. 1993. Knowledge for action: A guide to overcom-ing barriers to organizational change. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C, & Schon. D. 1974. Theory in pracHce. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C, & Schon, D. 1978. Organizational learning. Read-ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1993.Creating readiness for organizational change. HumanRelaHons, 46: 681-703.

Ashford, S. J., Rothbard, N. P., Piderit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E.

1998. Out on a limb: The role oi context and impressionmanagement in selling gender-equity issues. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 43: 23-57.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. 1998. The power of resistance:Sustaining valued identities. In R. M. Kramer & M. A.Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: 89-120. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bagozzi j R. P. 1978. The construct validity of the affective,behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude byanalysis of covariance structures. Multivariate BehaviorResearch, 13: 9-31.

Bagozzi, R. P. 1992. The self-regulation of attitudes, inten-tions, and behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55:178-204.

Barnett, C. K. 1994. OrganizaJiona7 learning theories: A re-view and synthesis of the literature. Working paper.University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., & Huff, A. S. 1992. Cognitive change,strategic action, and organizational renewal. StrategicManagement Journal, 13: 15-36.

Bartlem, C. S., & Locke, E. A. 1981. The Coch and Frenchstudy: A critique and reinterpretation. Human Relations,34: 555-566.

Beer, M., & Walton, A. E. 1987. Organization change anddevelopment. Annuai Review of Psychology, 38: 339-367.

Breckler, S. J. 1984. Empirical validation of affect, behavior,and cognition as distinct components of attitude. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 47: 1191-1205.

Brower, R. S., & Abolafia, M. Y. 1995. The structural embed-dedness of resistance among public managers. Groupand Organization Management, 20: 149-166.

Burgelman, R. A. 1991. Intraorganizational ecology of strat-egy making and organizational adaptation: Theory andfield research. Organization Science, 2: 239-262.

Clinard, M. B. 1983. Corporate ethics and crime: The role ofmiddle management. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. 1948. Overcoming resistance tochange. Human Relations, 1: 512-532.

Cohen, L. E., & Staw, B. M. 1998. Fun's over, fact checkers arehere: A case study of institutionalized dissent in themagazine publishing industry. Advances in QualitativeOrganization Research, vol. 1: 105-136.

Cooperrider, D. L. 1998. Capturing what matters most in thepractice of appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution inchange. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAcademy of Management, San Diego.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. 1987. Appreciative inquiryin organizational life. Research in OrganizationalChange and Development, 1: 129-169.

Davidson, J. O'C. 1994. The sources and limits of resistancein a privatized utility. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R.Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations: 69-101. New York: Routledge.

Davis, D., & Ostrom, T. M. 1984. Attitude measurement. In R. J.Corsini (Ed.), Wiley encyclopedia of psychology: 97-99.New York: Wiley.

2000 Pideiit 793

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. 1999. Challenging "resistanceto change." Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences,35(1): 25-41.

Diamond, M. A. 1986. Resistance to change: A psychoanalyticcritique of Argyris and Schon's contributions to organi-zation theory and intervention. Journal of ManagementStudies, 23: 543-562.

Drummond, H. 1998. Go and say, "we're shutting": Ju Jitsu asa metaphor for analyzing resistance. Human Relations,51: 741-759.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., Wierba, E. E., O'Neill, R., & Hayes, E.1997. Beading the wind: How middle managers assessthe context for issue selling to top managers. StrategicManagement Journal, 15: 407-425.

Dyck, B., & Starke, F. A. 1999. The formation of breakawayorganizations: Observations and a process model. Ad-ministrative Science Quarterly, 44: 792-822.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. 1993. The psychology of attitudes.Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. 1998. Attitude structure and func-tion. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindsey (Eds.),Handbooi of social psychology, vol. 2: 269-322. Boston:McGraw-Hill.

Fiske, S. T., & Payelchak, M. A. 1986. Category-based versuspiecemeal-based affective responses: Developments inschema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Hig-gins (Eds.), Handbooi of motivation and cognition: Foun-dations of social behavior, vol. 1: 167-203. New York:Guilford.

Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. 1996. The strategic middlemanager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1994. Logics of identity, contradiction,and attraction in change. Academy of Management Re-view, 19: 756-785.

Foy, N. 1985. Ambivalence, hypocrisy, and cynicism: Aids toorganization change. JVew Management, 2(4): 49-53.

Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. 1976. Mea-suring change and persistence in human affairs: Typesof change generated by OD designs. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Sciences, 12(2): 133-157.

Graham, J. 1984. Abstract of a dissertation on principledorganizational dissent. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Society for Industrial and OrganizationalPsychology, Toronto.

Graham, J. 1986. Principled organizational dissent: A theo-retical essay. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8:1-52.

Graham, P. (Ed.). 1995. Mary Parker Follett^prophet of man-agement: A celebration of writings from the 1920s. Bos-ton: Harvard Business School Press.

Hirschman, A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses todecline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Janssen, O., de Vries, T., & Cozijrisen, A. J. 1998. Voicing byadapting and innovating employees: An empirical studyon how personality and environment interact to affectvoice behavior. Human Relations, 51: 945-966.

Jermier, J. M., Knights, D., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.). 1994. Resis-tance and power in organizations. London: Routledge.

Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. 1967. The attribution of attitudes.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3: 1-24.

Katz, D. 1960. The functional approach to the study of atti-tudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24: 163-204.

Klein, D. 1976. Some notes on the dynamics of resistance tochange: The defender role. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne,R. Chin, & K. E. Corey (Eds.), The planning of change (3rded.): 117-124. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Kothandapani, V. 1971. Validation of feeling, belief, and inten-tion to act as three components of attitude and their con-tribution to prediction of contraceptive behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 19: 321-333.

Krantz, J. 1999. Comment on "challenging 'resistance tochange.'" Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 35(1):42-44.

Langley, P., & Jones, R. 1988. A computational model of sci-entific insight. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature ofcreativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives:177-201. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lawrence, P. R. 1954. How to deal with resistance to change.Harvard Business Review, 32(3): 49-57.

Lewin, K. 1952. Group decision and social change. In G. E.Swanson, T. M. Newcombe, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Read-ings in social psychology (2nd ed.): 459-473. New York:Holt.

McCaffrey, D. P., Faerman, S. R., & Hart, D. W. 1995. Theappeal and difficulties of participative systems. Or-ganization Science, 6: 603-627.

Merron, K. 1993. Let's bury the term "resistance." Organiza-tional Development Journal, 11(4): 77-86.

Merton, R. K. 1976. Sociological ambivalence and other es-says. New York: Free Press.

Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. 1995. Tempered radicalismand the politics of ambivalence and change. Organiza-tion Science, 6: 585-600.

Milgram, S. 1965. Some conditions of obedience and disobe-dience to authority. Human Relations, 18: 57-76.

Modigliani, A., & Rochat, F. 1995. The role of interactionsequences and the timing of resistance in shaping obe-dience and defiance to authority. Journal of Social Is-sues, 51(3): 107-123.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge at work:Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academyof Management Journal, 42: 403-419.

Piderit, S. K. 1998. United we stand: Embedding attitudestoward change in social relationships. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,San Diego.

Piderit, S. K. 1999. Wavigating relationships with coworiers:Understanding employees' attitudes toward an organi-zational change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Porras, J. L, & Silvers, R. C. 1991. Organization development


and transformation. Annual Review of Psychology, 42'51-78.

Pratt, M. G., & Barnett, C. K. 1997. Emotions and unlearning inAm way recruiting techniques: Promoting changethrough "safe" ambivalence. Management Learning,28(1): 65-88.

Rodrigues, S. B., & Collinson, D. L. 1995. "Having fun"?: Hu-riior as resistance in Brazil. Organization Studies, 16:739-768.

Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. 1960. Cognitive, affective,and behavioral components of attitudes. In M. J. Rosen-berg (Ed.), Attitude organization and change: 1-14. NewHaven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rusbult, C. E., Farrell, D., Rogers, G., & Mainous, A. G. 1988.Impact of exchange variables on exit, voice, loyalty, andneglect: An integrative model of responses to decliningjob satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal 31:599-627.

Russell, J. A. 1980. A circumplex model of affect. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 39: 1161-1178.

Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Greenbaum, C. W. 1985. Job experi-ence, persuasion strategy, and resistance to change.Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6: 157-162.

Saunders, D. M., Sheppard, B. H., Knight, V., & Warshaw, P. R.1992. Employee voice to supervisors. Employee Respon-sibility and Rights Journal, 3: 241-259.

Schwartz, R. M. 1986. The inner dialogue: On the asymmetrybetween positive and negative coping thoughts. Cogni-tive Therapy and Research, 10: 591-605.

Shapiro, D. L., Lewicki, R. J., & Devine, P. 1995. When doemployees choose deceptive tactics to stop unwantedorganizational change? Research on Negotiation in Or-ganizations, 5: 155-184.

Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). 1988. The nature of creativity: Contem-porary psychological perspectives. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Thomas, R. J. 1989. Participation and control: A shopfloorperspective on employee participation. Research in theSociology of Organizations, 7: 117-144.

Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. 1995. Let's notbe indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E.Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Anteced-ents and consequences: 361-386. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceEribaum Associates.

Vince, R., & Broussine, M. 1996. Paradox, defense, and attach-ment: Accessing and working with emotions and rela-tions underlying organizational change. OrganizationStudies, 17: 1-21.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Developmentand validation of brief measures of positive and nega-tive affect: The PANAS scales./ournal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 54: 1063-1070.

Watson, T. J. 1982. Group ideologies and organizationalchange. Journal of Management Studies, 19: 259-275.

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. 1999. Organizational change anddevelopment. Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 361-386.

Weigert, A., & Franks, D. D. 1989. Ambivalence: Touchstoneof the modern temper. In D. D. Franks & E. D. McCarthy(Eds.), The sociology of emotions: 205-227. Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Weisberg, R. W. 1988. Problem solving and creativity. In R. J.Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporarypsychological perspectives: 148-176. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.

Withey, M. J., & Cooper, W. H. 1989. Predicting exit, voice,loyalty and neglect. Administrative Science Quarterly,34: 521-539.

Zanna, M, P., & Rempel, J. K. 1988. Attitudes: A new look at anold concept. In D. Bar-Tal & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Thesocial psychology of knowledge: 315-334. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Sandy Kristin Piderit is an assistant professor of organizational behavior in theWeatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University. She re-ceived her Ph.D. at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. In her research sheexamines the roles of individuals in organizational change and the dynamics ofrelationships among coworkers.

rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence…. organizational... · in the for-profit...

Documents