Organizational C hange, Resistance to C hange and
Participatory Strategies: A Feedback Perspective
Mag. Sylvia Schweiger, MSc.
Institute of Human Resource and Change Management
University of Linz
Address: A ltenbergerstrasse 69, 4040 Linz, Austria.
Phone: +43 680 4450504
Email: sylvia.schweiger@ jku.at
Dr. Hendrik Stouten
Institute for Management Research
Radboud University Nijmegen
Address: P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Phone: +31 (24) 361 15 15
Email: h.stouten@ fm.ru.nl
Dr. Inge L. Bleijenbergh
Institute for Management Research
Radboud University Nijmegen
Address: P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Phone: +31 (24) 361 14 74
Email: i. bleijenbergh@ fm.nunl
Organizational C hange, Resistance to Change and Participatory
Strategies: A Feedback Perspective
Abstract
Literature on organizational change considers resistance to change as either a
hindrance to successful organizational change or a valuable source for organizational
change. This paper introduces a feedback perspective on the relationships between
organizational change and employee resistance to organizational change, allowing for
reconciling positive and negative causal links between these concepts. Moreover, a
feedback perspective allows us to identify strategies that may help to accomplish
successful organizational change. On the basis of an inductive case study in a large
Austrian service company we built a causal loop diagram that shows the dynamic
processes around resistance to organizational change. The causal loop diagram may
help to determine in what situations participatory strategies contribute to
organizational change in the context of resistance. The value of this research is that it
not only contributes to enhancing a systems understanding of resistance to change, but
also to understand when the benefits of participatory strategies in terms of the quality of
change outweigh the costs of the extra time investments needed.
Keywords
Organizational change, resistance to change, participatory strategies, causal loop
diagramming, feedback perspective, systems understanding
Introduction
In order to be successful, organizations must effectively adapt and respond to changes in
their environment (Jaramillo, Mulki, Onyemah & Pesquera, 2012). However,
researchers and practitioners agree that the majority of organizational change initiatives
fail (e.g., Eaton, 2010; Isem & Pung, 2007; Michel, Todnem & Bumes, 2013; Strebel,
1996). One major reason for failures of organizational change efforts is attributed to
employee resistance to organizational change (e.g., Del Val & Fuentes, 2003; Erwin &
Garman, 2010; Ford & Ford, 2010; Jaramillo et al., 2012; Michel et al., 2013; Oreg,
2006). The traditional view sees employee resistance to change as something that needs
to be overcome or eliminated (Erwin & Garman, 2010; Furst & Cable, 2008). In this
view, change succeeds if resisters stop their irrational and self-serving behavior (Ford &
Ford, 2009, p. 99). In contrast to this traditional paradigm, recent studies stress the
possibility of resistance to change being a valuable resource in accomplishing change
(e.g., Ford & Ford, 2009; Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008; Harvey & Broyles, 2010).
According to Thomas and Hardy (2011, p. 322) these studies celebrate resistance, as it
plays an important role in successful organizational change. Following this modem
paradigm, as Bareil (2013) calls it, Ford and Ford (2009, p. 100) define resistance to
change as an important form of receiving information from employees, and dismissing
this feedback robs you of a powerful tool when implementing change. Hence, the
existing literature currently offers two dominant yet contrasting approaches on
resistance to change: the demonizing versus the celebrating of resistance to change
(Thomas & Hardy, 2011, p. 322).
The reason why the literature on resistance to change is so paradoxical and
contradictory (Bareil, 2013, p. 61) has probably to do with the complexity and
nonlinearity of the structural relationships between organizational change and resistance
to change. According to Bumes (2005) and Shirey (2013), organizational change and
resistance to change are both part of complex, nonlinear and dynamic systems. Conse-
quently, they call for complex, nonlinear and dynamic models, as linear and static
models cannot fully represent these dynamic systems. This call is also supported by Van
de Ven and Sun (2011, p. 71) who attest a need for models that address the interacting
complexities of change processes. The objective of this paper is to accommodate this
need by building a causal loop diagram capturing the structural relationship between
organizational change and resistance to change, in order to facilitate successful
organizational change. In fact, causal loop diagrams are known for being able to capture
complexity and nonlinearity of organizational phenomena (Sterman, 2000). Causal loop
diagrams visualize feedback loops within organizational processes, in which all
variables are both cause and effect (Murdoch & Geys, 2014; Senge, 2006, p. 75;
Vennix, 1996). Even though a system can contain a very large number of feedback
loops, there are only two types: reinforcing and balancing loops (Sterman, 2000). The
causal loop diagram developed within this research is based on an inductive case study
and was derived by using grounded theory techniques, which are known to be very
useful when trying to identify concepts and how they interrelate to each other (e.g.,
Kopainsky & Luna-Reyes, 2008; Luna-Reyes & Andersen, 2003; Y earworth & White,
2013). Discovering patterns in the data ultimately leads to identifying positive or
negative causal links (Kopainsky & Luna-Reyes, 2008, p. 472), which are the building
blocks of feedback loops (Sterman, 2000). Empirical data was collected within a large
Austrian service company that is confronted with difficulties in adapting to changes
taking place in their external environment. Three data collection methods were applied:
3
1) semi structured interviews, 2) a model-building process, and 3) a group model-
building session with employees from top, middle and low level management. Our
findings suggest that the relationship between change and resistance is not only positive
or negative, but mutually causal, thus nonlinear and complex. We argue that our
research not only advances studies of resistance, but also stimulates innovative
theorizing by introducing a feedback perspective. This thinking in feedback moves us
back to the roots of resistance to change when Kurt Lewin introduced the term as a
systems phenomenon (Dent & Galloway Goldberg, 1999, p. 25). However, the concept
of resistance to change has been narrowed and pared down since its origin (Burke, 2011,
p. 156; Ford et al., 2008, p. 370). By combining different elements in one causal loop
diagram this study contributes to again broadening the concept and therefore enhances a
systems understanding of resistance to change. Finally, this paper also offers a strategy
aimed to facilitate successful organizational change: Decision-makers are advised to
adequately and timely regulate the use of participatory strategies by a) continuously
perceiving the current state of the system as portrayed by our causal loop diagram, and
b) anticipating various reinforcing and balancing effects which can be expected upon
taking a specific decision. The section on findings provides a detailed description of
identified reinforcing and balancing effects visualized in form of feedback loops. The
remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The next section describes our methods
of data collection and data analysis in more detail. We then present the causal loop
diagram that visualizes the relationship between organizational change and resistance,
including the feedback processes that reinforce or balance this resistance. Next, we
discuss the contribution of our findings to existing literature and suggest implications
for adequately applying participatory strategies to facilitate organizational change. We
end with discussing some limitations of the study.
Material and methods
Our empirical data was collected within a large Austrian service company, which has a
long and very successful tradition of being a pioneer and key player in its business
domain. Nevertheless, for several years, employees at various management levels have
been noticing severe changes in the company’s extemal environment and in society in
general. New players, for instance, keep appearing on the market increasing the
competition in the respective service sector. In recent years, customers’ attitudes, tastes
and demands have also been changing very rapidly. Moreover, some employees believe
that, without successful change, the company is moving away from its desired goals
increasing the discrepancy between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’. Therefore, it seems
necessary to adapt to the changes taking place in the external environment in order to
succeed and, in the long run, to survive as a company. Unfortunately, this Austrian
service company has been confronted with difficulties in successfully initiating and
implementing organizational changes. Some employees assume that employee
resistance to these changes is one of the major reasons for these difficulties. This led the
first author to investigate this case by conducting semi-structured interviews, building a
model of the dynamic system underlying their change processes, and having this system
being validated in a group model-building session with employees from top, middle and
low level management of the company.
For the semi-structured interviews, the ten interviewees were asked about their
perceptions of why employee resistance to change seems to exist in the company and
which strategies might be able to facilitate successful implementation of future change
4
initiatives. These interviews took place face-to-face and each lasted between 45 and 70
minutes. The main purpose of the interviews was to collect some first positive and
negative causal relationships that could be used when constructing feedback loops
(Sterman, 2000). Second, by conducting mainly individual interviews, we aimed to
capture many different viewpoints, i.e. to get “as many ideas as possible out on the
table” (Andersen & Richardson, 1997, p. 111). A third reason was to become familiar
and build rapport with the participants (Vennix, 1996), which indeed proved useful
during the group model-building session. All interviews had been tape-recorded,
transcribed verbatim and coded. The coding scheme! contains codes that represent
either (1) definitions of concepts (variables) or (2) relationships between two variables
(causal links). Following the guidelines suggested by Luna-Reyes and Andersen (2003),
we were mindful not to impose any codes but rather to let them emerge from the
interview data. Once codes had been defined, they were applied systematically.
The model building process is based on Sterman’s (2000, p. 157) rationale that
interviews are almost never sufficient alone when eliciting causal relationships. They
must be supplemented by other sources of data because causal links retrieved by
interviews generally show a number of blind spots (Vennix, 1996, p.125). Therefore,
the information retrieved from the semi-structured interviews was expanded by a model
building process that was initially undertaken with a key-informant and finalized by a
group model-building (Vennix, 1996) session with six employees from top, middle and
low level management.
The group model-building session served three purposes. First, additional data was
collected and added to the preliminary causal loop diagram while employees were
drawing on a blackboard. Second, the session proved to be a useful validation tool for
the preliminary model structure that was created during the initial model-building
process and for the additions made to the causal loop diagram. Third, a shared learning
environment was provided to the participants.
The components of the causal loop diagram as well as its verbal descriptions presented
in the next section have been entirely derived from our empirical data. Some interview
excerpts, which underpin the causal links of the model, have been selected to illustrate
our empirical material. The structure of the causal loop diagram emerged during the
initial model-building process and the group model-building session. Both helped to
ground the evolving causal loop diagram in the mental models (Forrester, 1987) of the
people involved.
Findings
Our results reflect participants’ perceptions of relationships between organizational
change and employee resistance to organizational change. According to the findings,
participatory strategies play a significant role in moderating this relationship. Therefore,
this section introduces the perceived interconnectedness of three concepts: 1)
organizational change, 2) employee resistance to organizational change and 3)
participatory strategies. In order to facilitate the illustration of the various mutual
causalities identified by the participants and depicted in a causal loop diagram, this
section is split into three parts: First, we concentrate on the relationships between
organizational change and resistance to change. Second, the interconnectedness of
* The coding scheme and further supplementary material can be obtained by contacting the corresponding
author.
5
participatory strategies with organizational change is illustrated. Third, we describe
mutual causalities between resistance to change and participatory strategies. In total, 10
feedback loops are portrayed in our causal loop diagram, three of the loops being
responsible for reinforcing behavior and seven of them having balancing effects.
Organizational change and resistance to change
The introduction pointed towards effects resistance to change can have on the success or
failure of organizational change. However, empirical data argues for mutual causality
by demonstrating that successful change can also have effects on resistance to change
via a need for change. According to the participants of this study, all organizational
change starts with a need for change that is determined by two variables: the change
goals and successful change. Figure 1 graphically depicts the idea that an increase in
change goals leads to more need for change, while an increase in successful change”
reduces the need for change as successful change brings the company closer to their
change goals.
change goals
+
eed for change
successful
change
Figure 1°, Need for Change determined by Successful Change and Change Goals.
An increase in need for change eventually fosters employees’ awareness that change is
indeed needed. Participants of this study suggest that when employees perceive a need
for change because successful change has not yet met the change goals, they will
develop a sense of commitment and show support towards finding a solution.
Consequently, employees will less likely resist upcoming change initiatives.
More awareness of a problem means less resistance (mid-level manager, man).
If I don’t see any reason for change, it’s hard not to resist. If you want to stop
resistance, it’s very important that employees understand the reason and need for
change (low-level manager, man).
Participants further posit that low levels of resistance to change facilitate successful
change that in tum reduces the need for further change initiatives. These combined
? Empirical data distinguishes between change and successful change in so far as the participants of the
study argue that not all change is successful, i.e. capable of bringing the company closer to the desired
goal and thus reducing the need for further change.
Variables are related by causal links, shown by arrows. The independent variable at the tail (X) has
either a positive (+) or negative (-) causal effect on the dependent variable at the point (Y ). Positive causal
links signify that both variables change in the same direction, i.e. all else equal, if X increases (decreases),
Y increases above (decreases below) what it would otherwise have been. A negative polarity indicates
that an increase (decrease) in X causes Y to decrease (increase), i.e. all else equal, if X increases
(decreases), Y decreases below (increases above) what it would otherwise have been. A link polarity does
not describe any behavior, i.e. it does not determine whether Y actually increases or decreases (Sterman,
2000; Vennix, 1996).
6
individual cause-effect relationships create the Organizational Change loop as
illustrated in Figure 2.
change goals
+
_wneed for chang
~\
B1
successful ese awareness that
Organizational
change change js needed
Change
resistance to.
change *
Figure 2‘. Organizational Change.
This Organizational Change loop in the basic operates according to a very simple
problem solving process: altered change goals will lead to a need for change. If
employees become aware of this need, they will react supportive and change initiatives
can take place successfully. Successful change will decrease the initial need for change
as it brings the organization closer to its change goals. The problem seems solved.
According to the participants, however, strong need for change can also foster resistance
to change through triggering stress. This occurs when employees feel overwhelmed by
the magnitude of the anticipated change or involved uncertainty fostering psychological
stress or mental overload. Subsequently, stress has a positive effect on resistance to
change, as employees start blocking and resisting change initiatives when there is too
much tension.
If there is too much tension (...) employees will be overwhelmed and begin to block
(mid-level manager, man).
Crisis means that some employees close up, i.e. they are not open anymore and close
their minds to anything new (mid-level manager, man).
Stress can trap change. This Stress Trap is visualized in Figure 3 adding a new feedback
loop to our understanding of the core dynamics behind the structural relationships
between organizational change and resistance to change. Within this Stress Trap,
resistance produces further resistance, which hampers successful change. Hence, a
vicious cycle arises which impedes reaching the change goals. The degree to which
* The ,B‘ stands for balancing. A loop is called balanci ing or stabilizing when “a change in
one element is propagated around the circle until it comes back to change that element in a direction
opposite to the initial change” (Meadows, Meadows, Randers & Behrens, 1972, p. 42).
7
change goals are reached depends on the strength of the Organizational Change Loop
relative to that of the Stress Trap.
~wneed for chang
successful aieee
change
Rt
Stress
Trap
esistance to.
change
Figure 3°. Stress Trap.
Participatory strategies and organizational change
The participants of this study consider the introduction of participatory strategies a
useful and appropriate response to resistance. In their view, participatory strategies
aggregate a number of activities such as communicating in an open, transparent, com-
prehensible and honest way, seeking direct conversations, listening to and catering for
employees’ needs and involving employees in change development and decision-
making processes.
[In case of resistance] in a first step you need to get people on board by providing
information. In a second step you should ensure a good and strong involvement in
the development of the change (mid-level manager, man).
In case of resistance, you need to try to explain why it is so important and necessary
to change, why this change is needed and what each individual can do to play a part
of this and to explain what consequences we are confronted with if the change is not
taking place. Also, it’s important to seek direct conversations. Communication is an
important aspect, but I think, it doesn’t suffice. The next step is to involve employees
(mid-level manager, woman).
Our empirical material further illustrates that introducing participatory strategies has an
indirect positive effect on successful change as participatory strategies increase the
quality of change initiatives. Participants argue that the more resistant employees are
involved in the change process, the more thought is given to the change, the more
° The ,R’ stands for reinforcing. These loops reinforce, amplify or accelerate whatever is happening in the
system (Sterman, 2000).
8
additional viewpoints come to the surface, the more concerns are shared, and thus the
more potential drawbacks of the change initiative can be detected early on.
Consequently, the change initiative becomes subject to more critical review and critical
analysis. Resistance to change is, in this case, more about being concerned and skeptical
and can therefore be a sign that employees care about and give thought to the change
initiative and do not blindly accept all idiocy.
Resistance also shows that somebody cares and gives thought to the change and
doesn’t blindly accept all nonsense (low-level manager, man).
If somebody is enthusiastic, he/she only perceives the positive and might overlook
important thing. If somebody is resistant and critical, then I have the advantage that
I also get to see negative consequences of the change initiative (mid-level manager,
man).
There are really good people in here. If you let them participate, they could really
contribute in a great way (mid-level manager, woman).
Resistance to change is therefore also positively connected to successful change via the
intermediate variables participatory strategies and quality of change. This addition
results in two extra feedback loops, called Quality Flow (Figure 4) and Success Calms
(Figure 5). The Quality Flow loop accelerates successful change by increasing the use
of participatory strategies. This leads to faster successful change bringing the
organization closer to its change goals, which reduces the need for further change
initiatives. The latter reduces the strength of the Stress Trap as this vicious trap obtains
its strength via a strong need for change.
a for chat
successful
change
a
ae Flow
qual
awareness that
change is needed
Soet
7
Barticipatory
strategies resistance t
t—\, change
Figure 4. Quality Flow.
The balancing loop Success Calms also tempers stress when an increasing use of
participatory strategies emerging from resistance to change leads to high quality change
9
initiatives boosting successful change, which eventually reduces the need for change.
Consequently, stress which employees perceive due to the anticipated change decreases.
a for chang:
successful
change
a, chang
past sttgss
change
Z B2
Success
Calms
Participatory :
strategies resistance to.a—
tS, change
Figure 5. Success Calms.
In sum, the use of participatory strategies tempers the acceleration process of the Stress
Trap through enhancing successful change and reducing need for change. However, our
findings also highlight that participatory strategies have an important drawback. They
are very time-consuming which works against organizational change. The participants
in our study argue that the more participatory strategies are applied, the more
communication must be offered, conversations conducted, and employees involved in
change development and decision-making processes. These activities are very time-
consuming and by the time sufficient exchange of information and opinions has been
achieved and decisions have been reached, it might be too late to act upon them. All this
reduces the efficiency of the change initiative. A negative causal link was therefore
introduced from participatory strategies to efficiency of change and a positive causal
link from efficiency of change to successful change. This addition created two new
feedback loops: 1) the Slow Trap (Figure 6) and 2) the Sense of Urgency loop (Figure
7). The Slow Trap represents a vicious cycle reinforcing the inefficiency of
participatory strategies. This trap implies that successful change declines through low
levels of efficiency as a result of an increasing use of participatory strategies.
Consequently, the need for change grows leading to more stress, stronger resistance, re-
sulting in the use of even more participatory strategies. Hence, the Slow Trap
contributes to a continuous growth of a need for change while at the same time
reinforcing resistance to it.
10
a need for chang
successti
<7, change
efficitincy
of change
R3
Slow Trap
articipatory
strategies resistance to
change
Figure 6. Slow Trap.
The Sense of Urgency loop also implies that low levels of efficiency negatively
influence success change and raise the need for change. However, in contrast to the
Slow Trap, increasing need for change reduces resistance via fostering awareness that
change is needed. Thus, Sense of Urgency limits the use of participatory strategies as a
response to their inefficiency.
~~ for change
successfil
© change
i +
awareness that
change ig needed
efficisney
of change
Sense of
Urgency
anticipatory
strategies resistance t
YS change =
Figure 7. Sense of Urgency.
11
The degree by which the quality of the change initiatives outweighs the inefficiency of
participatory strategies depends on the relative strength of and interactions between the
Quality Flow, Success Calms, Sense of Urgency and the Slow Trap.
Resistance to change and participatory strategies
According to the participants of the study, participatory strategies do not only contribute
to the success of change via an increased quality of change, but they also have more or
less direct tempering effects on employees’ resistance to change. Our empirical material
points towards four such tempering effects. The first effect has to do with raising
awareness. In case of resistance to change, one needs to try to explain why change is so
important and necessary, why it is needed, and what consequences are to be expected if
the change is not taking place. Empirical data suggests that an atmosphere of open,
comprehensible and honest communication can lead to employees understanding the
reasons behind change, becoming more aware of the need for change and less likely
reacting resistant towards upcoming change initiatives.
[When resistance emerges] contents about WHY and WHAT most probably haven’t
been articulated in a very transparent way (mid-level manager, man).
If you cannot explain the change so it makes sense that it’s a good idea, then the
change won't take place (mid-level manager, man).
The use of participatory strategies has a direct effect on awareness that change is
needed, this creates a feedback loop which we call Enlightenment. This feedback loop is
illustrated in Figure 8 and captures that awareness that change is needed increases due
to the application of participatory strategies which in turn leads to a decline in resistance
to change. Enlightenment is stabilizing in nature, i.e. it counteracts initially strong
resistance to change.
awareness that
change ig needed
Ba
Enlightenment
participatory ;
strategies resistance t
change
Figure 8. Enlightenment.
12
The second tempering effect of participatory strategies on employees’ resistance to
change has to do with negotiating compromises. According to our data, one of the major
reasons why employees resist anticipated change initiatives is their fear of expected
personal disadvantages that change potentially brings about. Examples mentioned by
the participants include fear of additional workload, having to learn different tasks,
getting new responsibilities, loss of power, prestige and security as well as loss of job.
As mentioned above, participatory strategies include change agents seeking direct
conversations and listening to and catering for employees’ needs. These activities
contribute to finding compromises and reducing employees’ fears of personal
disadvantages.
With resistant employees you have to speak most often and you have to ‘sell’ the
change to them. For half of them, a compromise can usually be achieved, so at the
end, the change is pleasant for them (mid-level manager, woman).
The above is captured in the balancing loop called Compromise (Figure 9). The
Compromise implies a need for negotiations between change agents and affected
employees aiming at compromises that each party can accept. The Compromise
illustrates that personal disadvantages decline due to an increase in use of participatory
strategies, which in turn leads to a decline in resistance to change.
personal
disadvantages
B5
Compromise
_participatory +
strategies resistance to
change
Figure 9. Compromise.
The third tempering effect participatory strategies have on employees’ resistance to
change is about employees’ perceived level of empowerment resulting in their
commitment towards the change initiative due to feelings of being adequately informed,
heard and involved during the change process. This perceived power of being able to
actively contribute to, shape and influence the change process reduces resistance to
change.
13
[Participatory strategies] lead to more immediate perceptions of employees’ own
contributions’ consequences. In other words, when it’s recognized which
contribution your own actions create, then you are less resistant (mid-level manager,
man),
If an employee is confronted with a change, he/she was not involved in beforehand,
then most probably he/she will react resistant (mid-level manager, man).
This results in the balancing loop called Active Contribution (Figure 10). According to
this loop, empowerment increases due to an increase in participatory strategies, which in
tum leads to a decline in resistance.
empowerment
Bo
Active
Ne Contribution
participatory v4
strategies resisiance t
y ghange
Figure 10. Active Contribution.
The fourth and final tempering effect is that participatory strategies - when
implemented in the form of open, transparent, comprehensible and honest
communication - often lead to accumulated trust towards change agents. This study
applies Burke’s (2011, p. 156) definition of change agents as “leaders and managers of
change and their consultants whether internal or external”. According to our empirical
evidence, trust in change agents implies that they are planning and implementing
change properly and do what is best for the organization and employees. The
participants of this study perceive trust as a counterweight to fears. In this respect, trust
in change agents contributes to reducing resistance to change.
Information and transparency create trust. (...) It is important to clarify what the
change initiative is all about in order to create mutual trust which finally leads to a
space free of fear. Such a space enables a lot (mid-level manager, man).
14
This is captured in the balancing Social Credit loop that is added to the diagram in
Figure 11.
+ tru
87
Social
participatory Credit
strategies resistance to.«~
w—© change
Figure 11. Social Credit.
Discussion
The objective of this paper was to accommodate the need for deeper insight in the
structural relationship between organizational change and resistance to change through a
systems perspective. Our causal loop diagram provides a start in capturing the non-
linear feedback complexity embedded in the dynamic system underlying organizational
change and resistance to change. This feedback perspective touches upon the roots of
resistance to change when Kurt Lewin introduced the term as a systems concept (Dent
& Galloway Goldberg, 1999, p. 25) and suggested “rather than attempting to understand
a situation by focusing on one or two elements in isolation, one needs to consider the
situation as a whole” (Bumes & Cooke, 2013, p. 411). According to Burke (2011, p.
156), however, many have strayed from Lewin’s origins and narrowed resistance to a
psychological phenomenon, instead of enhancing a systems perspective that combines
individual forces with the context. This research contributes to again broadening the
concept by depicting a causal loop diagram with 10 feedback processes surrounding
resistance to change. Some represent processes at the individual level (e.g., stress,
empowerment, personal disadvantages, trust), while others resemble processes rather at
the organizational level (e.g., need for change, quality of change, efficiency of change).
15
Combining these different elements in one causal loop diagram, again broadens the
concept and therefore enhances a systems understanding of resistance to change.
A further contribution of this research lies in the fact that it unites seemingly
contradictory perspectives in one model. Our findings suggest that the relationship
between resistance and change is not only positive or negative, but allows for resistance
to simultaneously affect successful change both negatively and positively. Within the
feedback loops Organizational Change and Stress Trap, resistance to change negatively
affects successful change via a direct causal link. In this respect, the study supports the
traditional paradigm (Bareil, 2013) or demonizing approach (Thomas & Hardy, 2011)
of resistance to change, as these loops suggest that resistance opposes successful
change. Enlightenment also supports the traditional paradigm in so far as it suggests that
once employees become aware of the need for change, their resistance will fade away.
This confirms the traditional approach that argues for showing change recipients the
errors of their ways and dealing with their misunderstandings (Ford et al., 2008, p. 370).
In addition, the feedback loop Compromise suggests that resistance to change should be
eliminated by reducing personal disadvantages, which - according to the participants of
the study - are mainly based on employees’ fears and self-serving interests. In contrast
to these traditional views, our causal loop diagram also portrays a positive effect of
resistance on successful change within Quality Flow and Success Calms. These loops
illustrate that resistance has an indirect positive effect on successful change when
participatory strategies increase the quality of the change initiatives through critical
review and analysis. This confirms Burke (2011) who states that participatory strategies
provide a forum where differences among people are surfaced, confronted, and debated
resulting in improved decision-making. Similarly, our model supports Vennix (1996, p.
154) when he claims that cognitive conflict promotes vigilance and “disagreement
causes a more thorough investigation of the problem, more information processing and
a consideration of more alternatives”. In this respect, participatory strategies emerging
from resistance to change can be used to harvest the information feedback from
employees (Ford & Ford, 2009, p. 100). Therefore, this study also confirms the modem
paradigm (Bareil, 2013) or celebrating approach (Thomas & Hardy, 2011) of resistance
to change.
In sum we argue that the reason why the literature on resistance to change is so
paradoxical and contradictory (Bareil, 2013, p. 61) has to do with the complexity,
mutual causality and nonlinearity of the structural relationships between organizational
change and resistance to change. Our findings illustrate that the complexity of these
structural relationships can neither be fully accounted for by the traditional nor the
modem paradigm of resistance to change. Our causal loop diagram provides a more
integral perspective on resistance to change. Hence, our findings illustrate the co-
existence of both perspectives allowing for resistance to change to simultaneously
affecting successful change both negatively and positively. This is possible as multiple
causal paths allow for resistance to change affecting successful change and vice versa.
Whether resistance to change hampers or fosters successful change is a function of the
relative strength of these different relationships, and the loops of which they are part.
By moving away from the two-paradigm-view of seeing employees’ resistance either
positive or negative towards change, our findings do not support Bareil’s (2013, p. 64)
sequential approach for managing resistance: “the modem paradigm first, where
resistance to change is considered as a legitimate resource and feedback from the silent
majority, and consecutively, only if no behavioral change appears, usually from a
16
minority, or when speed is essential, from a traditional perspective, where resistance to
change is interpreted as a drastic opposition to the change”. According to our findings,
the accelerating and stabilizing simultaneous effects circulating around resistance to
change suggest that a linear sequence of applying one paradigm at a time is no adequate
response to managing resistance.
Instead, our study suggests another approach. Our causal loop diagram grants
participatory strategies a significant position in moderating the relationship between
successful organizational change and resistance to it. Empirical data suggests deploying
participatory strategies in an adequate manner when trying to enhance successful
organizational change. This implies that one should not by default opt for participatory
strategies every time a change is required in the organization. In fact, not all change is
accompanied by high levels of resistance to change. This implies that the Organizational
Change loop might just work fine in a lot of the cases in which change is required and
employees have positive responses and feel a readiness for change (e.g. supported by
Powell & Posner, 1978). However, when the company seems to be stuck in a Stress
Trap, the use of participatory strategies cannot only foster successful change via
increased quality of change, but can also have tempering effects on resistance to change.
Our empirical material points towards four such effects. Participatory strategies can 1)
raise awareness that change is needed, 2) reduce employees’ personal disadvantages, 3)
create perceived empowerment, and 4) accumulate trust in change agents. These four
effects all negatively affect resistance to change (e.g. supported by Chawla & Kelloway,
2004; Erwin & Garman, 2010; Harvey & Broyles, 2010; Jaramillo et al., 2012; Kotter &
Schlesinger, 2008). Hence, the more participatory strategies are used, the less resistance
towards the change initiatives is to be expected. Still, when applying participatory
strategies haphazardly and excessively, there is risk that the company falls into a Slow
Trap. In this case, the time-consuming nature of participatory activities negatively
affects the efficiency of change and sometimes, urgent changes need to be implemented
rather fast. This is supported by Eisenhardt (1990, p. 39 and p. 53) when she argues that
“the best strategies are irrelevant if they take too long to formulate” and “a slow strategy
is as ineffective as the wrong strategy”. Therefore, fostering participation and actively
involving as many employees as possible is not always the best strategy. One important
practical implication emerging from studying the conditions and effects embedded in
our causal loop diagram is to strategically reduce participatory strategies whenever
sufficient trust towards the change agents has been accumulated (through the Social
Credit loop). This strategy allows for fast and efficient decision taking when required,
while historically accumulated trust ensures employees’ commitment/support and
hinders resistance. Thus, at first sight this approach seems to trigger a win-win situation
of high efficiency and low resistance. However, this strategy should only be applied
scarcely given that a reduction of participatory strategies fosters personal disadvantages
and negatively affects the quality of change and the levels of empowerment and
awareness that change is needed. In addition, if change leaders repeatedly refrain from
applying participation, trust will (eventually) deplete. This strategy reflects Nutt’s
(2002, p. 100) suggestion that decision makers who use an edict (i.e., decision without
argumentation) must draw on social credit, the store of goodwill they built up by honest
dealings and positive accomplishments, and trade it for rapid action. He also highlights
that repeated use of an edict exhausts the store of social credit. In addition to this very
specific recommendation of adequately and timely regulating the use of participatory
strategies, this study also offers managers a model that can be used to check their
17
situational context of resistance to change. After this diagnosing phase, the system
structure can help to explore potential future paths, as it highlights various reinforcing
and balancing effects that can be expected upon taking a specific decision.
Finally, this study has some limitations. First, the dynamics that emerge from overall
interactions between all the elements of our causal loop diagram is restricted to the
mental capacity of the reader. Therefore, we propose future work on quantifying the
model structure in order to support the reader in discovering emerging dynamics and
reveal potential counter-intuitive behavior resulting from the assumptions in the model
(Lane, 2008, p. 6). Second, the intangibility of most model variables reduces the
applicability of the practical implications presented above. In other words, it might be
tough for managers to adequately and timely regulate the use of participatory strategies
when measuring the size of determinants such as trust, need for change, empowerment
and stress is a quite challenging endeavor. Third, the inductive approach defined the
scope of our model as it has emerged from and was restricted to the empirical data we
have collected. Even though the causal loop diagram aims to tell a rich story, there are
definitely some important causal links missing which the literature has already
identified. For instance, existing literature points out that participatory strategies can
also negatively affect resistance, e.g. an increase in involvement can foster resistance
(e.g., Bruhn, Zajac & Al-Kazemi, 2001) and providing information can promote
resistance (e.g. Oreg, 2006). Also, in certain circumstances, participatory strategies can
decrease the quality of change (e.g. Janis, 1972). It is acknowledged that many more
aspects can be considered when creating a causal loop diagram of organizational change
and resistance to change. Still, Senge (2006, p. 72) wams that “thousands of variables
and complex arrays of details can actually distract us from seeing patterns and major
interrelationships”. Morecroft (2012, p. 645) confirms this by stating that “very often,
smaller models are extremely useful, particularly when their purpose is to aid communi-
cation and to build shared understanding of contentious problem situations in business
and society”. Therefore, future research might want to concentrate on enhancing the
quality/depth rather than the size of the model. Finally, we suggest testing the
components of the causal loop diagram in a broader set of cases and with different types
of organizational change processes.
Conclusion
This study illustrates the need to reconcile the traditional and the modern paradigm in a
broader systems perspective and shows how a systems paradigm is able to unite contra-
dictory knowledge. A feedback perspective allows for mapping the broader dynamic
system underlying resistance to change. This broader dynamic system consists of the
following reinforcing and balancing feedback loops: (1) Organizational Change, (2)
Stress Trap, (3) Quality Flow, (4) Success Calms, (5) Slow Trap, (6) Sense of Urgency,
(7) Enlightenment, (8) Compromise, (9) Active Contribution, and (10) Social Credit. In
addition, our causal loop diagram provides insights into when and how to regulate the
use of participatory strategies and its effects on organizational change and resistance.
How successful these strategies are depends on the strength of the loops in a given
situational context. However, the anticipation of various potential reinforcing and
balancing effects, which can be expected upon taking a specific decision, can support
decision-makers avoiding obvious traps or even successfully triggering organizational
change.
18
References
Andersen, D. F., & Richardson, G. (1997). Scripts for group model building. System Dynamics
Review, 13, 107-129.
Bareil, C. (2013). Two Paradigms about Resistance to Change. Organization Development
Journal, 31(3), 59-71.
Bruhn, J. G., Zajac, G., Al-Kazemi, A. A. (2001). Ethical Perspectives on Employee
Participation in Planned Organizational Change: A Survey of Two State Public Welfare
Agencies. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(2), 208-228.
Burke, W. W. (2011). A Perspective on the Field of Organization Development and Change:
The Zeigarnik Effect. The J ournal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 143-167.
Bumes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 7(2), 73-90.
Bumes, B., & Cooke, B. (2013). Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory: A Review and Re-evaluation.
International J ournal of Management Reviews, 15, 408-425.
Chawla, A., & Kelloway, E. K. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change.
Leadership & Organization Development J ournal, 25(6), 485-498.
Del Val, M. P., & Fuentes, C. M. (2003). Resistance to change: a literature review and empirical
study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.
Dent, E. B., & Galloway Goldberg, S. (1999). Challenging “Resistance to Change”. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 35, 25-41.
Eaton, M. (2010). Why change programmes fail. Human Resource Management International
Digest, 18(5), 37-42.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1990). Speed and Strategic Choice: How Managers Accelerate Decision
Making. California Management Review, 32(3), 39-54.
Erwin, D. G., & Garman, A. N. (2010). Resistance to organizational change: linking research
and practice. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(1), 39-56.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L.W. (2009). Decoding Resistance to Change. Harvard Business Review,
87, 99-103.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2010). Stop Blaming Resistance to Change and Start Using It.
Organizational Dynamics, 39(1), 24-36.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story.
Academy Of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.
Forrester, J.W. (1987). Lessons from system dynamics modeling. System Dynamics Review, 3,
136-149.
Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee Resistance to Organizational Change:
Managerial Influence Tactics and Leader-Member Exchange. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93(2), 453-462.
Harvey, T. R., & Broyles, E. A. (2010). Resistance to change. A guide to harnessing its positive
power. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Isern, J., & Pung, C. (2007). Hamessing energy to drive organizational change. Mckinsey
Quarterly, 1, 16-19.
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Groupthink, a Psychological Study of Foreign-policy Decisions
and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J. P., Onyemah, V., & Pesquera, M. R. (2012). Salesperson resistance to
change: an empirical investigation of antecedents and outcomes. International Journal of
Bank Marketing, 30(7), 548-566.
Kopainsky, B., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2008). Closing the Loop: Promoting Synergies with Other
Theory Building Approaches to Improve System Dynamics Practice. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 25(4), 471-486.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business
Review, 86(7/8), 130-139.
19
Lane, D.C. 2008. The Emergence and Use of Diagramming in System Dynamics: A Critical
Account. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 25(1): 3-23.
Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Andersen, D. L. (2003). Collecting and analyzing qualitative data for
system dynamics: methods and models. System Dynamics Review, 19, 271-296.
Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., Randers, J., & Behrens, W. (1972). The Limits to Growth.
New Y ork: Universe Books.
Michel, A., Todnem By, R., & Bumes, B. (2013). The limitations of dispositional resistance in
relation to organizational change. Management Decision, 51(4), 761-780.
Morecroft, J. D. W. (2012). Metaphorical Models for Limits to Growth and Industrialization.
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29, 645-666.
Murdoch, Z., & Geys, B. (2014). Institutional Dynamics in International Organizations: Lessons
from the Recruitment Procedures of the European External Action Service. Organization
Studies, 35(12), 1793-1811.
Nutt, P. (2002). Why decisions fail. Avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to debacles. San
Francisco: Berrett-K oehler.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73-101.
Powell, G., & Posner, B. Z. (1978). Resistance to Change Reconsidered: Implications for
Managers. Human Resource Management, 29-34.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization.
New Y ork, NY: Doubleday Currency.
Shirey, M. R. (2013). Lewin’s Theory of Planned Change as a Strategic Resource. Jona, 43(2),
69-72.
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world.
Boston, Mass.: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
Strebel, P. (1996). Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, 74(3), 86-92.
Thomas, R., & Hardy, C. (2011). Reframing resistance to organizational change. Scandinavian
Journal of Management, 27(3), 322-331.
Van De Ven, A., & Sun, K. (2011). Breakdowns in implementing models of organization
change. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(3), 58-74.
Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group model building. Facilitating team learning using system
dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.
Yearworth, M., & White, L. (2013). The uses of qualitative data in multimethodology:
Developing causal loop diagrams during the coding process. European Journal of
Operational Research, 231(1), 151-161.
20
Appendix 1. Empirical data underpinning causal links.
Causal links
Interview excerpts
Change goals ->
need for change
There are many changes happening
Everything is changing out there
The society is changing
We live in a dynamic society, but also in highly dynamic markets
new players are on the market
competition grows
there is a need to offer our customers up-to-date service
without change our company cannot sustain
Successful change -
> need for change
Without change the current state stays the same, i.e. the discrepancy
between ,,IS" and , SHOULD BE” is growing and growing
I have to change so the customer is happy
Without change, the world is moving away from us. We are
continually moving away from our environment in which we operate
[without change] not even the necessary reactive adjustment is
taking place
Change is a goal of the company. Without change a company cannot
sustain. If change is successful, the company will sustain
Need for change ->
awareness that
change is needed
The question is whether the employees are aware of the problem.
Awareness that
change is needed ->
resistance to change
more awareness of a problem means less resistance
if somebody is afraid of collapse, he/she will more likely accept any
changes
a higher degree of suffering leads to less resistance
if the change makes sense, resistance is small
the change must make sense, so employees don’t react resistant on it
There are many changes where I think ,, why/what for?“. And that is
a key word: need/reason for change. If I don’t see any reason for
change, it’s hard not to resist. If you want to stop resistance, it’s very
important that employees understand the reason and need for change.
Resistance to
change ->
successful change
Either I don’t follow the change at all or I follow it, because I have
to, but I won't do my job very well.
Resistant behavior leads to keeping the status quo
Openness leads to change
Need for change ->
stress
I think a crisis would trigger panic.
A decline in number of customers would (...) definitely produce
enormous stress.
Stress -> resistance
to change
if there is too much tension (...) employees will be overwhelmed and
will begin to block, in other words, they will “close the shutter”.
Crisis means that some employees close up, i.e. they are not open
anymore, but they close their minds to anything new
21
Resistance to
change ->
participatory
strategies
* Ina first step you need to get people on board by providing
information. In a second step you should ensure a good and strong
involvement in the development of the change, i.e. participation
* incase of resistance, you need to try to explain why it is so
important and necessary to change, why this change is needed and
what each individual can do to play a part of this and to explain what
consequences we are confronted with if the change is not taking
place. Also, it’s important to seek direct conversations.
Communication is an important aspect, but I think, it doesn’t suffice.
The next step is to involve employees.
* Incase of resistance you need to explain the change in a very
practical way.
* One possible strategy is to provide information and establish
transparency. That is at least a first step.
¢ Incase of resistance, information must be made much more
transparent.
* Total equality with regard to information is important in case of
resistance.
* Asa first step you need to convince the employees, employees need
to understand why.
* Here it is necessary, that goals of the change are communicated ina
clear and comprehensive way.
Participatory
strategies -> quality
of change
* there are really good people in here. If you let them participate, they
could really contribute in a great way
+ If employees know why/what for, then there is a lot of willingness to
think about change.
+ [We try] to actively extract the knowledge of the employees. We try
to encourage them to share their ideas and suggestions for
improvements.
* if you don’t let employees participate, you may not wonder why you
always get the same results. More of the same doesn’t lead you to
different results.
+ If somebody is enthusiastic, he/she only perceives the positive and
might overlook important things
* — If somebody is resistant and critical, then I have the advantage that I
also get to see negative consequences of the change initiative.
+ — Little resistance leads to fewer critical analysis of the change.
* — resistance also shows that somebody cares and gives thought to the
change and doesn’t blindly accept all nonsense.
* [Without resistance] there is risk that you might not see whether the
change actually does make sense or not or whether the change is
efficient or not.
Quality of change -
> successful change
+ Important messages have potential to steer the change initiative in
another, potentially better direction
Participatory
strategies ->
efficiency of change
Efficiency of change
These two causal links emerged after the interviews had taken place.
They were introduced during the initial model-building process and
confirmed during the group model-building session.
22
-> successful
change
Participatory + [When resistance emerges] contents about WHY and WHAT most
strategies -> probably haven’ t been articulated in a very transparent way.
awareness that
change is needed
Employees have to understand the change initiative. Y ou have to
explain your colleagues and employees the change. If you cannot
explain the change so it makes sense that it’s a good idea, then the
change won't take place
It’s a lot about background information, why change is needed. The
change must make sense.
Participatory * With resistant employees you have to speak most often and you have
strategies -> to “sell” the change to them. For half of them, a compromise could
personal be achieved, so at the end, the change was pleasant for them.
disadvantages
Personal * Resistant behavior is due to fear. Various fears. Fear of personal
disadvantages ->
resistance to change
disadvantage
fear of disadvantages leads to more resistance
employees do not want any personal disadvantages, i.e. reduced
satisfaction of personal needs. That is the main fear behind
resistance
Participatory
strategies ->
empowerment
[Participatory strategies] lead to more immediate perceptions of
employees’ own contributions’ consequences. In other words, when
it’s recognized which contribution your own actions create, then you
are less resistant.
An employee who has the perception (no matter how small) that
he/she can change something, will be much more confident. When
employees have the feeling that things they say are not heard or
processed, then the employees lose satisfaction
Empowerment ->
resistance to change
If an employee is confronted with a change he/she was not involved
in beforehand, then most probably he/she will react resistant.
Participatory
strategies -> trust
A very transparent illustration [of the change initiative] creates trust.
Trust is seen as counterweight to all the fears that exist
Information and transparency create trust. (...) Therefore it is
important to clarify what the change initiative is all about in order to
create mutual trust which finally leads to a space free of fear. Such a
space enables a lot.
Trust -> resistance
to change
Openness promotes trust, trust creates a comfort zone and
consequently a more open approach/attitude towards change
The acceptance of the change leader also plays a key role. If he/she
is accepted by the group, then it’s easier for him/her to “sell” the
change than for somebody who is not that accepted or new in the
company.
23
