Chapter 8: Resistance to Change

8.1 Explain the benefits of resistance to change, as well as the

disadvantages
Benefits:
Resistance to change provides valuable feedback on what is being proposed. It
can be a resource used to evaluate change before it is implemented. And so, a
change manager that understands the resistance and considers the concerns
about the change is more likely to implement and effective change plan.
Disadvantages:
Resistance can threaten organizational performance, competitiveness, and
survival, and lead to job loss in some cases. Resistance can also mean a failure to
learn new skills and abilities, with long-term implications for individual
employability.

8.2 Understand the causes of resistance to change

Innate Dislike of Change. People tend to dislike changes in their life and routine.
However, that is not a generalization as to why resistance occurs. Resistance can
occur due to the organizational context in which the change is proposed and not
just because of a human and personal trait.
Low Tolerance of Uncertainty. Uncertainty can occur due to lack of information
on the proposed change, unclear intents behind the change, and if individuals do
not know what is expected of them in the process.
Perceived Negative Effects on Interests. People find it easier to support changes
when their interests are not threatened, and they may resist when they perceive
that their interests will be damaged
Attachment to Organization Culture and Identity. People’s beliefs about their
organization’s identity and cultural values will make them more likely to resist any
changes that affect those values.
Perceived Breach of Psychological Contract.
Lack of Conviction That Change Is Necessary.
Lack of Clarity as to What Is Expected.
Belief That the Proposed Changes Are Inappropriate.
Perception That the Timing Is Wrong.
Too Much Change.
The Cumulative Effects of Other Life Changes.
Perceived Ethical Conflict.
The Legacy of Past Changes.
Disagreement with How the Change Is Managed.

8.3 Identify the symptoms of resistance to change

Symptoms of Active Resistance

Being critical, finding fault, ridiculing, arguing
Appealing to fear, starting rumors
Using facts selectively, distorting facts
Blaming, accusing, intimidating, threatening
Manipulating, sabotaging
Blocking, undermining

Symptoms of Passive Resistance

Agreeing in person but not following through
Failing to implement change
Procrastinating, dragging one’s feet
Feigning ignorance
Withholding information, suggestions, support
Standing by and allowing change to fail
8.4 Recognize and diagnose middle management resistance to change,
which could be a blockage, or could be highly beneficial.

Managers can also resist change, for all the reasons identified earlier, and are
they not always advocates for it. Managers are not a single group, and so
differences within management can be significant. Changes proposed by one
department or division may be opposed by another. For example, changes
directed by top management may not be welcomed by middle managers.
The stereotype of the middle manager as change blocker is not consistent with
the evidence. Middle managers often subvert or block top leadership directives,
but only to put in place something more effective. Middle managers play a
significant role in the change process.

8.5 Understand and apply different approaches to managing resistance

Let nature take its course

A largely ‘hands-off’ approach based on the view that people respond to change
by progressing through a stage response – denial, resistance, exploration, and
commitment – i.e., resistance is a stage that will ‘pass’ without management
intervention.
Attraction Strategies
Based on the idea that resistance is attraction to elements of the current system
so managing change involves identifying (and making explicit) the new attractors
(in the proposed change).
Attraction strategies suggest that resistance can be avoided if the change
manager designs and presents proposals in ways that are appealing and
compelling. One way to ensure that change is attractive is to involve those who
will be directly affected in deciding what and how to change in the first place.
Contingency Approaches
‘contingency’ means that actions are tailored to the specific characteristics of the
situation, that is, there is no ‘one best way’. Action to deal with resistance should
be based on a diagnosis of the cause or causes; people may resist change for
more than one reason.

Six strategies for managing resistance in different situations:

education – keeping people informed
participation – involving people actively
facilitation – providing technical and emotional resources
negotiation – offering incentives to reduce resistance
manipulation – making selective use of information
coercion – threatening undesirable
Chapter 9: Organization Development and
Sense-Making Approaches
9.1 Appreciate more clearly the organizational change approaches
underpinning the coach and interpreter images of managing change
Underpinned by the coach image, the Organization Development (OD) approach
is one where its adherents present their developmental prescriptions for
achieving change as being based upon a core set of values, values that emphasize
that change should benefit not just organizations but the people who staff them.
Underpinned by the interpreter image, the Sense-Making approach maintains
that change emerges over time and consists of a series of interpretive activities
that help to create in people new meanings about their organizations and about
the ways in which they can operate differently in the future.

9.2 Understand the organization development (OD) approach to change.

Organization Development is a change approach that focuses on a core set of
values, these values build upon humanistic psychology and emphasize the
importance of developing people in work organizations and helping them to
achieve satisfaction.
The traditional practice of OD has as its focus people and is not necessarily meant
to be solely focused on the interests of management or the profitability of the
firm. It is still considered the major approach to organizational change.
Classic OD approach has the following characteristics:
- Planned and whole system focused
- Involvement and commitment from top management
- It aims to improve the effectiveness of the organization
- Long-term and action-oriented
- Changing attitudes and behaviours
- Experiential learning is important
- Group/team focus
- Values basis is humanistic, democratic, and developmental.
OD Practitioner/Steps involved:
Problem identification
Consultation with OD practitioner
Data gathering and problem diagnosis
Feedback
Joint problem diagnosis
Joint action planning
Change actions
Further data gathering

As OD has become more widespread, so have questions about its strengths and
weaknesses as an approach to managing change.
OD criticism:
– Is the OD emphasis on ‘humanistic’ values (e.g., open
communication, participation, and empowerment) ‘up to the
task’ of bringing about change in tough, competitive
environments?
– Is OD too slow and too incremental when organizations often
require change to be rapid and transformational
– Are OD values universal or are they culturally specific?
– Is OD able to handle the challenges associated with large-scale
change?
Large-scale Change
• Some applications of OD have developed with a specific ‘whole system’
focus such as World Café, ‘town hall meetings’, and ‘future search’
• The large-scale change approach typically involves bringing all
organizational members/stakeholders together in one place.
• In large-scale change, the traditional OD focus on participation exists in
parallel with a focus on responsiveness to changing business conditions.
Inclusiveness is considered to develop shared perspectives about what
needs to be done which in turn provides the basis for successful collective
action

9.3 Be aware of extensions of the OD approach such as appreciative

inquiry, positive organizational scholarship, and dialogic OD.

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

Contrary to the problem-solving approach of classic OD, the appreciative inquiry
approach to change seeks to identify what is currently working best and to build
on this knowledge to help develop and design what might be achieved in the
future. It Shows a shift from the emphasis on problem-solving and conflict
management, to a focus on joint envisioning of the future.
Appreciative Inquiry involves four steps:
- Discovery of the current practices that are working best
- Building on current knowledge to envision future possibilities
- Designing, through collective dialogue, what should be
- Sustaining the organization’s future
Benefits of AI include constructive conversations, learning capacity within the
organization, and creates the conditions necessary for self-organizing to flourish.
Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)
POS is an umbrella term that encompass approaches such as appreciative inquiry,
positive psychology, and community psychology. POS developed to shift attention
from identifying “negative problems” in organizations and designing programs to
eliminate them, to thinking about the positive aspects of organizational life and
building change programs to spread these aspects elsewhere in organizations.
A POS perspective involves the following:
- Adopting a ‘positive lens’ on any situation
- Focusing on ‘spectacular, surprising, or extraordinary’ outcomes
- Seeing positivity as providing the capacity for greater achievements
- Assuming that humans have an innate inclination to try to achieve the best that
can be achieved
In line with the coaching metaphor, POS can be depicted as coaching
organizations to identify their “best plays,” to understand the behaviors and
dynamics underlying them, and then to work out how to spread them to other
parts of their “game” (the organization).

• POS Criticism
– Whether a particular behavior is positive is a subjective judgement
and may also be culturally relative
– Prioritising positive behaviours risks insufficient attention being
given to the important change that can come from attention to
negative behaviors?
– ‘Be positive’ programs can have a coercive element
• POS advocates counter-position
– POS does not ignore negative factors; rather it seeks to give attention
to the positive to counter the historic dominance on a problem-
focused approach to change
Dialogic Organizational Development
Whereas traditional/diagnostic OD emphasizes that any problem requiring change
could be addressed by first applying an objective diagnosis of the circumstances,
dialogic OD treats reality as subjective so that the priority in intervening in an
organization was to identify and acknowledge different stakeholders’
interpretations of what for them was “reality.” In parallel with this, the role of the
OD consultant moved from being the provider of data for fact-driven decision
making to being the facilitator of processes that encouraged “conversations”
around change issues. Central to the dialogic OD approach is the view that “real
change” only occurs when mindsets are altered and that this is more likely to
occur through “generative conversations” than persuasion by “facts.”
It can be stated that dialogic OD is “The shift from fixing a problem to cultivating a
system capable of addressing its own challenges”

9.4 Understand the sense-making approach to change.

• Sense-making is consistent with the interpreter image of managing change
• Sense-making is: “ a social process of meaning construction and
reconstruction through which managers understand, interpret, and create
sense for themselves and others of their changing organizational context
and surroundings’
 • Sense-making treats organizations as being in an ongoing state of
adjustment to changing circumstances (rather than ever being ‘frozen’ (in a
state of inertia)
• Sense-making rejects the idea of change being able to be managed through
a standardised change management program
Sense-making model provides an alternative approach to the OD approach.
Weick’s point of departure is to argue against three common change
assumptions:
The first is the assumption of inertia. Under this assumption, planned, intended
change is necessary in order to disrupt the forces that contribute to a lack of
change in an organization so that there is a lag between environmental change
and organizational adaptation. He suggests that the central role given to inertia is
misplaced and results from a focus on structure rather than a focus on the
structuring flows and processes through which organizational work occurs.
The second assumption is that a standardized change program is needed.
However, Weick says that this assumption is of limited value since it fails to
activate what he regards as the four drivers of organizational change. These
drivers for change are animation, direction, paying attention and updating and
respectful, candid interaction.
Most programmed or intentional changes fail to activate one or more of these
sense-making forces that assist individuals in managing ambiguity.
The third assumption is that of unfreezing, most often associated with Kurt
Lewin’s unfreezing–changing–refreezing change formula. Unfreezing is based on
the view that organizations suffer from inertia and need to be “unfrozen.”
However, “if change is continuous and emergent, then the system is already
unfrozen. Further efforts at unfreezing could disrupt what is essentially a complex
adaptive system that is already working”. If there is deemed to be ineffectiveness
in the system, then his position is that the best change sequence is as follows:
1. Freeze (to show what is occurring in the way things are currently adapting).
2. Rebalance (to remove blockages in the adaptive processes).
3. Unfreeze (in order to enable further emergent and improvisational changes to
occur).
Sens-Making Framework
Implications of Sense-Making perspective on managing change:
Change managers should try to provide a clear narrative that articulates the what,
why, and how of the proposed change
Because humans hate a ‘meaning vacuum’, in the absence of a clear narrative
they will create meaning to ‘fill the void’ which opens up the possibility for all
sorts of (mis)interpretations to ‘take hold’
Managers attempts at sense giving are only one source of information (about
what is ‘going on’) so their effectiveness is not guaranteed
Managers should be aware that their actions are likely to be interpreted
symbolically (i.e., what the actions ‘mean’) by other organizational members and
that this interpretation occurs regardless of whether or not managers intend it to
occur
Chapter 10: Change Management,
Processual, and Contingency Approaches

10.1 Understand and identify the factors that can cause change to fail.
 10.2 Assess the strengths and limitations of checklists for managing
change

Checklist approaches to change management assume that the process is logical

and linear and can therefore be controlled by planning and then following the
correct set of steps. This “rational linear”’ model of change has been widely
criticized, but it remains popular with professional bodies and management
consultancies, as it offers the change manager straightforward advice on what to
do to improve the chances of success.

Checklist Models (recipes)

The Big Four model:
Managers to focus on four issues to ensure that, once the decision to go ahead has
been taken, change happens fast and is effective:

1. Create Dissatisfaction. If people are happy with the way things are, they will be
more reluctant to change. A key change management task, therefore, is to make
people unhappy with the status quo.
2. Give Direction. People need to know what they are expected to do, and why. The
change manager must therefore be relentless in communicating the message over
and over again.
3. Have Faith. The change manager must make it clear that the benefits will be
worth the time, money, and effort, balanced with discussion of the uncertainties
and problems, taking new information into account.
4. Embrace the Mess. Change is an untidy business. Despite careful planning, there
will always be mistakes and setbacks. This is normal. Management must learn from
and fix the problems, and not focus on who is to blame.
The DICE model:
The DICE model developed by the Boston Consulting Group, for example, identifies
four factors that determine whether a change program will “fly or die”: Duration,
Integrity, Commitment, and Effort.

Change managers are advised to calculate scores for each of the DICE factors. For
example, duration scores highly if the overall project timescale is short with
frequent reviews, but scores badly if reviews are more than eight months apart.
Integrity scores well if a skilled and motivated project team has a capable and
respected leader, and scores badly if those features are absent. Are those who
will be affected by the change enthusiastic and supportive (high commitment
score), or are they concerned and obstructive (low score)? Does the project
require a small amount of additional work (high effort score) or a lot of extra
effort on top of an already heavy load (low score)? The combined scores reveal
whether a project is in the win zone, the worry zone, or the woe zone. Knowing
where the weaknesses are, management can develop an action plan to move the
change into the win zone.
The ADKAR model
The focus of the ADKAR model lies with the individuals who will be involved in
and affected by change. In other words, the change manager is advised to
concentrate on individual awareness, individual desire, individual knowledge,
individual ability, and the extent to which reinforcement is meaningful and
relevant to the individual.

The change manager can use ADKAR as a diagnostic and planning tool, to identify
areas of potential resistance, to develop communication and staff development
strategies, and to strengthen change implementation by addressing gaps and
problems. Paying close attention to individual perceptions, strengths, and
weaknesses is a strength of the ADKAR approach, particularly with regard to
generating enthusiasm, overcoming resistance, and developing new skills. In
addition, this is one of the few models that explicitly addresses the issue of
sustaining change.
However, ADKAR pays less attention to the nature and implications of the wider
organizational context and the process of change—factors that are emphasized in
other models.
The Checklist for Successful Transformational Change model

They define transformational change as “any large-scale change, such as going

from good to great performance, cutting costs, or turning around a crisis”.
Individual perceptions, motivations, and capabilities are only implicit in this
model, which lays the emphasis instead on leadership and management
behaviors, and on organizational characteristics and processes.

Benefits and limitations of checklists (recipes):

Benefits
1. They provide clarity and simplicity in an area that can be complex & untidy.
2. Different checklists tend to offer much the same advice, which is reassuring.
Limitations
1. these checklists tend to lack any theoretical underpinning, relying often on an
argument that sounds like, “This worked for us, so it should work for you.”
2. these are generic “high-level guides,” and not detailed “best practice” road
maps.
3. These checklists do not substitute for local knowledge, informed judgment, and
creativity.
10.3 Evaluate the advantages of stage models of change management.

Stage models suggest that the actions that the change manager is advised to take
will vary over the implementation cycle. The steps that are necessary to initiate
change are thus to be different from those that are required during the
implementation stage, and different actions again are necessary to conclude and
sustain the change. Stage models can thus complement the checklist approach by
introducing this temporal dimension.

Lewin’s model (Unfreezing, Moving, Refreezing)

Lewin argued that change has three main stages, each requiring different actions
from the change agent:
1. Unfreezing. Changing attitudes by making people feel uncomfortable about the
way things are because they could be improved, and so establishing the motive to
change
2. Moving. Implementing the change to move to the desired new state
3. Refreezing. Embedding or institutionalizing the new behaviors, to prevent
people from drifting back to previous ways of doing things
Each of these three stages makes different demands on the change manager:
first, convincing those involved of the need to change; second, putting the change
in place; third, redesigning roles, systems, and procedures to prevent a return to
past practice.
The IHI Large-Scale Change Framework

The IHI framework followed Lewin’s approach, but it details the stages more
comprehensively than did Lewin, with detailed advice (checklists) for “building
will,” “generating ideas,” and “executing and sustaining the change.” This
framework also highlights the importance of “establishing the foundation,” which
involves personal preparation, building relationships and organizational change
capability, getting top team commitment, and developing future leaders.
Kotter’s Eight-Stage model

Probably the most widely cited and widely applied stage model of change is the
one developed by John Kotter, his eight-stage approach to transformational
change opens with “create a sense of urgency” (unfreeze), passes through
“empower others to act” (move), and ends with “institutionalize new
approaches” (refreeze). Lewin’s echo can be heard in this model, too.
Kotter revised his framework, arguing that the components identified should be
seen as “change accelerators,” to speed up change. The new argument has three
aspects. First, Kotter argues that the accelerators must operate concurrently,
rather than in sequence. Second, change must not rely on a small powerful core
group, but on many change agents from across the organization. Third, traditional
hierarchy must be complemented by flexible and agile networks.
Advantages of stage models
1. Stage models are usually easy to understand
2. Give managers a comforting feeling as they provide a guide to action
3. Encourages the change manager to anticipate and to prepare for possible
future problems
Disadvantages of stage models:
1. They ignore the legacy effects of past changes and how that may impact on
how people act
2. The treatment of sustaining change is rather limited
3. The advice is generic with little advice on how specific context can be taken

Finally, as with change checklists, stage models offer further “high-level”

guidance, leaving change management to determine how in practice to apply that
advice in a given context. There is no clear, unambiguous statement of “this is
what to do.”

10.4 Assess the theoretical and practical value of processual

perspectives on change.
Process perspectives argue that, to understand organizational change, one has to
understand how the substance, context, and process interact over time to
produce the outcomes.
To understand change, we need to consider:
1. The past, present, and future context in which the organization functions,
including external and internal factors.
2. The substance of the change itself, which could be new technology, process
redesign, a new payment system, or changes to organization structure and
culture.
3. The transition process, tasks, activities, decisions, timing, sequencing.
4. Political activity, both within and external to the organization.
5. The interactions between these factors.
Strengths
- Recognises the complexity of change, including the multiple factors that interact
to produce an outcome
- Treats change as a process with a past, present and future, all of which have to
be taken into account
- Highlights the political nature of organizations and the importance of the change
manager having political skills
Limitations
- Can make change seem overly complex and unmanageable
- Can make the role of people as active agents seem of limited significance in the
face of contextual social forces
-Tends to produce generic rather than specific advice about what to do in a given
situation.

10.5 Understand and apply contingency approaches to change

management.

There are no universal prescriptions for how best to manage change. This has led
to the development of contingency approaches, which argue that the best way to
manage change depends on contextual and other factors.
four contingency approaches: where to start?,the change leadership styles
continuum, the Stace-Dunphy contingency matrix, and the Hope Hailey-Balogun
change kaleidoscope.
Where to Start?
conclude that change is more likely to be successful if implementation has two
key components. First, start with the “pivotal people,” whose work is closest to
the activities that need to be improved. Second, design a comprehensive program
with clear and meaningful goals, linking those in pivotal roles with the changes
that the rest of the organization has to make. This question of “where to start?” is
not addressed explicitly by the checklist, stage model, or processual approaches.
The Change Leadership Styles Continuum
Suggests choosing a change leadership style based on considerations of available
time, use of available expertise, and staff commitment. A dictatorial approach to
management in general, and to change management in particular, probably runs
counter to most management beliefs.

The Stace-Dunphy Contingency Matrix

Argues that, while collaborative-consultative modes will work well under some
conditions, there are circumstances where directive-coercive modes of change
management are likely to be more appropriate and effective. In particular, where
major changes are necessary for survival, where time is short, and where those
affected cannot agree on the changes, then dictatorial transformation may be the
necessary choice of style. Inviting participation under those conditions would take
time and would be unlikely to produce any agreement.
It focuses on: style of change (collaborative/consultative vs directive/coercive)
and scale of change (incremental vs transformative)
Four resulting strategies (i) participative evolution, (ii) forced evolution, (iii)
charismatic transformation, (iv) dictatorial transformation
Each strategy is best used in a specified set of circumstances
While the idea that the best approach (to managing change) depends on the
situation may be seen as logical and appealing, applying a contingency approach
can be challenging because:
– Differing perceptions may exist as to the nature of the conditions
that should determine the appropriate approach to managing
change.
– Contingency approaches require more analysis and option selecting
by managers; the prescriptiveness of change management models
may be attractive to managers.
– Many managers may not have the capability (the ‘behavioral
flexibility’) to move between different styles as required by a
contingency approach as situations change.
– Managers use of different change styles at different times may be
interpreted as inconsistency by staff leading to the questioning of
managers’ credibility.
Chapter 11: Sustaining Change versus Initiative
Decay
11.1 Understand the causes of initiative decay—threats to the
sustainability of change.

1. The initiators and drivers of the change move on (before the change is
embedded)
2. Accountability for the success of the change becomes diffuse
3. Knowledge about the new practice is lost through turnover
4. Old habits are imported with recruits from less dynamic organizations
5. The factors that were the reasons for change are no longer visible
6. New managers want to drive their own agenda
7. Those opposed to change who have ‘bided their time’ take opportunities as
they emerge to undermine the change.
8. Implementation funding runs out.
9. Attention/resources shift to new priorities
10. People suffer ‘initiative fatigue’

11.2 Distinguish between change initiatives that are “blameworthy,” and

should not be sustained, and those that are “praiseworthy.”

The failure of an intended change is not always a problem that needs to be

solved. A change can fail because it was inappropriate for some reason.
“Productive failure” is valuable, an organization better have the capacity to add
the learning from such experiences to its store of knowledge rather than to
blaming people.
Praiseworthy failure is failure that the organization can learn valuable lessons
from, to improve future performance. Actions that aim to improve performance
that have undesirable outcomes are praiseworthy because they offer
opportunities to learn from. In order to learn from failures:
– Frame the work accurately (identify the sorts of failure that may be
expected)
– Embrace messengers – don’t punish those who deliver news of
failure.
– Acknowledge limits – be open about mistakes
– Invite participation – ask people to identify failures and encourage
the offering of ideas
– Be clear about what sort of actions are blameworthy.

Blameworthy failure is failure that deserves to be blamed. Incompetence,

deviance, inattention, and lack of commitment can be individual failures that
negatively affect the organizational change and its sustainability.
11.3 Identify and apply actions that can contribute to the sustainability
of change.

Redesign Roles
Behavior is influenced by the context in which people find themselves—by their
responsibilities, relationships, and roles. In short, first redesign roles, which
require new behaviors, and attitude change will then follow.
Redesign Reward Systems
Changing the reward system can contribute significantly to sustainability by
removing the financial motivation to return to old behaviors. Rewards should also
include public recognition of behaviors that are consistent with the desired
change to reinforce individual and group behavior.
Link Selection to Change Objectives
Staff selection, and promotion processes, can be powerful ways in which to
embed and sustain assumptions and values—to change and to maintain the
organization’s culture.
Walk the Talk
The importance of consistency between the statements and behaviors of the
senior managers regarding the change. Managers should send the right signals to
their employees to show that they are all in alignment with the change process.
Encourage Voluntary Acts of Initiative
Change is more likely to become embedded if those at the operational level are
supported when they developed for themselves the specific changes that they
believed appropriate for their own circumstance.
Measure Progress
Organizations should carry out a comprehensive progress check on major change
initiatives within six months after they have begun, and then annually thereafter.
These checks should use a combination of quantitative performance measures,
attitude surveys, focus groups, and interviews with individuals. Two kinds of
measures are particularly helpful: results measures and performance measures.
Celebrate en Route
One of the “accelerators” of change is to celebrate significant short-term wins.
Celebrating the early benefits, even if they are relatively small in scale, recognizes
and rewards those who are involved, strengthens the credibility of the program,
and helps to weaken the skepticism
Fine-Tuning
The need for corrective action is to be expected. Making timely modifications in
the light of experience will normally be more effective than attempting not to
deviate from plan.
Note: It is more effective to plan for sustainability from the beginning than to
regard this as an issue that can be left until a later stage.

11.4 Understand the pitfalls that can arise when seeking to sustain
change.

Expect some unanticipated outcomes. The change management challenge is to

respond in timely and appropriate ways to the unexpected outcomes.
Be alert to the limitations of measurement. Assessing the effectiveness of
change is complex and challenging. Careful measurement, adherence to criteria,
and timescale implications are crucial.
Beware premature declaration of victory. Celebrate the wins, but do not declare
overall victory. Until a change is firmly embedded, the possibility of a return to
previous working practices will remain possible.
Beware the escalation of commitment
Recognize “productive failure”