Little research is available examining the predictors or underlying mechanisms of employee reactions to implementation of change efforts. This article argues for the importance of the conceptual perspective of organizations adopted when implementing a change effort. A theoretical model is presented that aims to explain how employees decide to resist the implementation of an organizational change effort and to identify the key factors that affect the employees’ decisions to resist during change implementation. The model shows that resistance has an initiating event (discovery) and an outcome (resistance behavior), and that there are three intermediary elements (the interacting elements of attribution and emotional reaction followed by the decision to resist), each of which is shaped by a number of key variables. The initiating event triggers independently both an attribution and an emotional reaction with the attribution and emotional reaction interacting, each affecting the other. The emotional reaction affects, in turn, the decision-making process to resist, and the resistance decision leads to resistance behavior. This article also offers applications of the model to human resource (HR) practice.

Introduction

Human resource management (HRM) departments often are charged with the design and management of organizational change programs. Change implementation may lead to perceived threats to one’s job security, to one’s way of performing work, and to one’s power, and consequently may lead to employee resistance during change implementation. Therefore, an important consideration in change management initiatives is the assessment of the likelihood of resistance and the ability of employees to undermine the change effort. Little research, however, is available into the politics of resistance that surround organizational change (Buchanan, 1977; Hay & Härtel, 1997). This article attempts to address this gap by developing a theoretical model describing how employees decide to resist the implementation of an organizational change effort.

When it comes to implementing organizational change, change leaders need to ensure that the change fits the needs of the organization (Ackerman, 1982); they also should expect that people who are antagonistic to the change may resist it and often will try to sabotage it (Dunford, 1992). Indeed, the forces for maintaining the status quo in most organizations are so strong that some change leaders will plan for a quick and dramatic effort rather than undertake an incremental approach which may place change in the hands of those employees who have a vested interest in leaving existing power relationships unchanged (Paterson, 1983).

Not all employees will oppose change, and factions of support and resistance are not uncommon, for employees often will take sides. For example, those who favor a particular change and who feel most comfortable with it invariably will support the change, while employees adversely affected by the change usually will be less excited by it, are more likely to be anxious about it and usually will resist it (Carr, 1994; Geyer, 1995). It is no surprise, therefore, that employees who feel threatened by a change effort can resist with a resilience that matches or exceeds the will of the change leaders, especially when those employees possess power. Indeed, change can never be assumed to be a fait accompli, no matter how well planned and executed or how deeply the change leaders think about moral position. Although recognizing that resistance to change can be beneficial for organizational adaptability and viability, the scope of this article is confined to identifying factors that predict resistance to change.

Contemporary organizations exist in such turbulent times that change is no longer a choice (Axelrod, 1983). HRM, consequently, is less concerned with questions of if change should be implemented and more concerned with questions of how change should be implemented. Therefore, there is a need for change leaders to increase their capacity to diagnose potential resistance (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979).

Much has been written to help change leaders overcome resistance when they implement change, and they have been swamped with a plethora of advice. For example, change leaders have been advised to be participative (Coch & French, 1948), to use transition management (Ackerman, 1982), to make use of political diagnostic tools (Cobb, 1986), to introduce a person-centered approach (Coghlan, 1993), to develop a learning organization (Garratt, 1994), to use seven keys to successful change (Carr, 1994), and to be transformational leaders (Parry, 1996). Yet, and despite this abundance of advice, overcoming resistance to the implementation of change remains one of the enigmas of management practice. There can be no doubt that organizational change is a complex psychological event which needs to be respected and managed (Elliott, 1990), and those who lead the change effort need to use their power with maturity (McClelland, 1975).

The choice of conceptual framework can result in change leaders giving insufficient weight to the ability of employees within an organization to resist a change effort. For example, change leaders who follow the lead of some general organizational behavior texts such as Mullins (1996) and Robbins and Barnwell (1994) may choose to develop their conceptual framework of organizations around an organism metaphor (see Morgan, 1986). Central to the organism metaphor is an emphasis on common purpose as a core function with the organization being viewed as a living thing comprising parts that are, to a large extent, functionally differentiated but also interdependent. Using the organism metaphor, change leaders will also view the organization as existing in a social, economic and technological environment to which they must adapt to survive. That is, although the organization’s various parts need to be coordinated, the organization is also involved in a continuing relationship with its environment, which governs many of its internal activities. Therefore, change leaders who view the organization within the organism metaphor are likely to consider factors in the external environment such as competitor activity, consumer preferences, process technologies, legislation, resource costs, and economic conditions (Dunford, 1992).

However, the organism metaphor is a very general and potentially simplistic approach for change leaders to use. For example, rather than react to its environment, an organization may want to influence its environment by lobbying at the political level, by undertaking public relations or by engaging in collusion with competitors (Dunford, 1987; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Also, political activity, whether it be overt or covert, is not confined to an organization’s external environment, so change leaders cannot assume with any certainty that one or more employees within an organization will not act politically to oppose the implementation of a change effort. Finally, and importantly for this study, the organism metaphor assumes that organizations and employees have shared and common purposes; this assumption is problematic when it comes to investigating organizational change.

A more accurate framework for change leaders to adopt is the political metaphor (Morgan, 1986) because it highlights the diversity of values and interests at play within an organization and the resistance arising from these differences. Through the political metaphor change leaders will be better able to challenge the basic assumption of common purpose and will think of organizations as political arenas in which political behavior is not necessarily deviant. Although change leaders may overcome resistance by invoking powerful symbolism (Bolman & Deal, 1991), the actual attitudes and beliefs of individuals and groups within an organization are more important than symbolism. For example, individuals and groups may hold diverse opinions about the organization’s objectives, may have diverse interpretations of the most appropriate course of action (Child & Smith, 1987) and may make strategic choices based on their own areas of competence and career payoff (Kanter, 1984).

The political metaphor is more applicable to understanding resistance to change because it acknowledges the importance of organizational culture and politics (Gallagher, Rose, McClelland, Reynolds, & Tombs, 1997; Härtel & Berry, 1999; Meyerson & Martin, 1987; Pettigrew, 1973, 1985, 1987) and that resistance is often site specific (Knights & Vurdubakis, 1994). It more readily acknowledges that employees will naturally be suspicious about change (Toffler, 1970), and that resistance is often a result of the employees’ subjective conceptions of what is desirable (Collinson, 1994; Jermier, Knights, & Nord, 1994). It recognizes that employees tend to resist when they believe that change will be detrimental to their working life and the roles they value, and that employees often will perceive change as a disturbance to well-established routine (Child, 1984). It acknowledges that employees will expend effort on identifying change activity and labeling it according to their perceptions of what is happening (Dunford, 1992). It accepts that employees who want a particular change often will label those who do not as presenting obstacles and resistance, and that employees who want stability may speak of perseverance and commitment among those who share their views. Although their behavior may be identical, it will be the individual employee’s stance relative to each other that dictates the choice of language (Kahn, 1982). And finally, the political metaphor recognizes that resistance may vary across space, time and particular situations (Jermier et al., 1994).

Proposed Model of an Employee Decision to Resist an Organizational Change Effort

The model proposed in Figure 1 is based on an assumption that employees will undergo two fundamental activities: they will have an emotional reaction to the change effort and then they will make a decision on whether to resist. These two reactions are dynamic elements in a process-oriented model that is not anchored to a particular interpretation of how people will behave in these situations. It is a descriptive rather than a normative model and therefore is not designed to make a statement about whether employees should or should not resist organizational change. Neither does the model propose idealized employee behavior, but rather it attempts to portray how employees make a decision in relation to a certain situation.



Figure 1. Model of the employee decision to actively resist an organizational change effort.
(a full-size version of the graphic is available)

The Major Elements of the Model

Affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) states that some workplace events are affective events; that is, they produce emotional reactions. By definition, emotions are reactions attached to events (Frijda, 1993; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), with the emotional reaction resulting from a cognitive appraisal of the situation (Frijda, 1993). Further, affective events theory identifies emotions as the crucial predictor of behavior with research showing that discovery of organizational change produces emotional reactions; consequently, the discovery event qualifies as an affective event. The proposed model therefore depicts the employee decision to actively resist an organizational change effort as consisting of a sequence of discovery, attribution, emotion, and the decision to resist. In this sequence, the event and the attribution influence emotion, and the relationship between the attribution and emotion is reciprocal. Both attribution and emotion are subject to reactivation as new information or reminders of the change occur, and with reactivation comes the possibility of revision to attribution and emotion, which, in turn, affects the employee decision to resist or continue resisting the implementation of the change.

Therefore, the process of deciding to resist an organizational change effort begins when employees discover or are told about the change, and concludes when the employees engage in resistance behavior. Between discovery and resistance are two key variables – attribution and emotional reaction – and it is proposed that the interaction between these key variables is critical in the decision-making process that determines whether influencers will actively resist the change. Each variable in the model is now explained in more detail.

Discovery – employees find out about the change. The initiating event for the operation of this model is the discovery by the employees that an organizational change effort is about to occur. Employees might find out about the change directly from the decision maker or via some indirect route such as the media or other employees. The information that is conveyed to the employees may completely or only partially describe the situation. So, not only does the discovery itself trigger the process leading to resistance, the method of discovery and the completeness of the information may have an effect on how employees perceive the change and the change leader, and any consequential attribution employees might make in relation to the change.

Emotional reaction – employees react emotionally to the change. Upon discovering that a change effort is to occur, the employees’ initial appraisals of the relevance of the event elicit general emotional reactions, either positive or negative, towards implementing the change. This postulation is consistent with attribution theory (Weiner, 1995), affective events theory (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) and cognitive appraisal theory (Frijda, 1993). Because emotions can be rich and complicated experiences (Matlin, 1995), it usually will be difficult for employees to know immediately whether the change will be favorable or not (Pfeffer, 1992a). The employees’ emotional reactions may be short-lived and consist merely of fleeting momentary thoughts. On the other hand, they may be long lasting and have an effect on their consideration of the situation. Alternatively, they may be reactivated with the possibility of revision (compare Härtel, McColl-Kennedy, & McDonald, 1998) as the employees struggle to make meaning of the change and consider what to do. Two variables are proposed to play a crucial role in the employees’ emotional reactions to the change effort: their emotional characteristics and their attribution. Two further variables are proposed to affect employee attribution: informational cues about the change, and the organizational environment defined as the organization’s culture, climate and economic reality.

Proposition 1: Employees’ decisions to resist an organizational change effort will be affected by their emotional reactions to the change effort.

The mediating role of attribution. Employees’ perception of the people involved in the change may have an effect on their emotional reactions towards implementing the change. Attribution, therefore, is an important part of the employees’ emotional reactions as they make inferences about and attempt to explain the behavior of others, in particular the change leader (Weiner, 1995). Their perceptions and judgments will be significantly influenced by their assumptions about the motives of the change leader (Jones et al., 1972; Robbins & Barnwell, 1994), and they will be concerned with attributing responsibility and blame for the change (Harvey, Orbuch, & Weber, 1992). This process of attribution on the part of employees will mediate emotional reaction to implementation.

Proposition 2: Attributions about the change will affect employees’ emotional reactions to an organizational change effort.

Emotional characteristics of employees and emotional reaction to change. The environment will be framed by the emotional characteristics of employees (Ferris & Judge, 1991). These include employees’ optimism (Gough & Härtel, 1998), their negative affectivity (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), their emotional reactivity, agreeableness and neuroticism, their inclination to principled dissent (Graham, 1990), their perception of self, group and organizational interests, their recollections of previous activity, and their present responsibilities (Huczynski, 1996), as well as their general perception of politics within the organization (Parker, Dipboye, & Jackson, 1995).

Proposition 3: Employees’ emotional characteristics will affect their emotional reaction to an organizational change effort.

Organizational environment (culture, climate, economic reality) and attribution. The context within which the change is to take place may have an effect on employees’ attributional appraisals of the change and consequently their emotional reactions towards implementing the change (Erez & Rim, 1982; Pfeffer, 1992b; Tjosvold, 1985). It is proposed that three elements of an organization’s environment – organizational culture, organizational climate and the organization’s economic reality – are features of the environment likely to play a crucial role in attributional appraisal of the change effort.

Organizational culture performs a number of functions within an organization; it conveys a sense of identity for members and, importantly, facilitates a commitment to something larger than self-interest (Robbins & Barnwell, 1994), whereas climate refers to the quality of an organization’s internal environment that influences behavior (Tagiuri & Litwin, 1968). Organizational culture and climate therefore will have an effect on employee attitudes and level of commitment to the organization and an organizational change effort. Although commitment is not easy to describe, it includes a notion of attachment and loyalty (Coopey & Hartley, 1990; O’Reilly, 1991) which is manifest in three key factors: a sense of belonging to the organization, a sense of excitement in the job and confidence in management (Martin & Nicholls, 1987).

Dimensions of culture expected to be particularly important to attributional appraisals of change efforts are the orientation towards change (Daft & Weik, 1994), the orientation towards communication (Broadfoot & Ashkanasy, 1994), the orientation to the individual (i.e., humanism) (Broadfoot & Ashkanasy, 1993; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, & Sowa, 1986; Margerison, 1979; Roberts, Rousseau, & La Porte, 1990), and the orientation toward participation (Denison, 1984; Petty, Beadles, Lowery, Chapman, & Connell, 1995).

Dimensions of climate expected to be particularly important to attributional appraisals of change efforts are trust, social-emotional support (Gough & Härtel, 1998; Kopelman, Brief, & Guzzo, 1990) and organizational justice (Folger & Konovoski, 1989).

How employees perceive the change leader’s motives will depend on the extent of trust that exists between the employees and the change leader. Trust in the change leader is an important factor in this process because trust may help overcome otherwise adverse reactions that employees might have (Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Tyler & Martin, 1997). Therefore, trust is a key factor in employee emotional reaction towards the implementation effort because, where trust exists, there is more likely to be a positive reaction (McAllister, 1995). The greater the level of trust within an organization, the less likelihood there is of covert political activity (Robbins & Barnwell, 1994).

Proposition 4: The organizational environment (culture, climate, economic reality) within which a change effort is to take place will affect employee attributional appraisal and consequently the emotional reaction to the change.

Informational cues about the change and attribution. Following the discovery event, employees will obtain information from a variety of formal and informal sources. This information, coupled with their perceptions of the organization’s culture and climate, contributes to attributions about the change. An emotional reaction is elicited by the attribution but also independently by the discovery event. Reinitiation of the attribution-emotion-decision sequence can occur and with it the possibility of revision of change-associated attributions and emotions (compare Härtel et al., 1998).

In accordance with attribution theory, informational cues received by employees will have an effect on their attributional appraisal of the change effort (Kelley, 1967; compare Ashkanasy & Gallois, 1994). Important informational cues include the method of discovery and completeness of the information received, and signals such as talk, negotiating stance and power plays from the change leader and other individuals associated with the change. These factors, combined with any historical informational cues, will determine employees’ attitudes towards the change effort (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Also, third party communication in relation to the change effort, the change leader or other individuals associated with the change may have a corrective effect on employees’ personal reactions if they believe that they might have misread the situation (Lawler, 1994). This third party information will have most effect when the third party is experienced in similar situations and is less emotionally involved in the current situation (Lawler, 1994).

Proposition 5: The informational cues received about an organizational change effort will have an effect on employees’ attribution regarding the change.

Decision to resist – employees decide to resist. Despite not having all possible strategic paths available to them (Berger, 1985), and despite there being limits to the computations employees can complete (Härtel & Härtel, 1997), and even though they might select what ends up being the wrong strategy for a particular situation (Kipnis, Schmidt, Swaffin-Smith, & Wilkinson, 1984), employees will still attempt to maximize their gains and minimize their costs (Cody & McLaughlin, 1980). Indeed, employees will consciously consider the implications of their behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). So, although their behavior may not appear rational to observers, it may well appear rational to the employees who make the best attempts to deal with a situation (Lawler, 1973). In addition to attribution and emotion, there are three variables that have a direct effect on employees’ decisions to resist change: their assessments of the impact of resistance, their assessments of the effort required to resist and their assessments of the risks involved. Their assessments of the effort required to resist are, in turn, affected by two variables: employee competence and confidence, and employee skills and abilities.

Assessment of the impact of resistance and the decision to resist. In making a decision about resisting a change effort, employees will make assessments of the impact of resisting. That is, they will have desirable outcomes they hope to achieve and will place a value on each (Lawler, 1994); they also will be swayed by their perceptions of how fairly they have been or will be treated in comparison with others (Gallagher et al., 1997; Mullins, 1996; Porter & Lawler, 1968). Further, employees high on internal control will believe they can influence the change effort, whereas employees high on external control will believe that the change effort is under the control of forces beyond them (Lawler, 1994). Therefore, employees high on internal control generally will be more motivated to resist a change effort because they will perceive a stronger connection between their behavior and their desirable outcomes (Lawler, 1994). Hence, employees’ perceptions of the impact they can achieve by resisting will be an important factor in their decisions to resist the implementation of a change effort.

Proposition 6: Employees’ decisions to resist an organizational change effort will include an assessment of the impact they can have by resisting.

Assessment of the effort required to resist and the decision to resist. Having determined that the outcomes to be achieved from resistance are desirable, employees then may determine whether they can resist successfully in this particular situation. To do this, they will make assessments based on two key variables: their skills and abilities, and their level of confidence and competence.

Proposition 7: Employees’ decisions to resist an organizational change effort will include an assessment of the effort required to resist the change.

Skills and abilities and the decision to resist. When assessing the effort required to resist change, employees may consider their own skills and abilities. To resist successfully, employees need to possess appropriate skills and abilities (Brislin, 1991; Ouchi & Maguire, 1975) which may differ markedly from other employees (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993). Therefore, successful resistance may depend on the manner in which the employees behave (Yukl, 1989), which in turn will be affected by individual differences like their cognitive and emotional intelligence (Ashkanasy, Jordan, & Härtel, 1998), and personality factors such as dominance, assertiveness and risk-taking propensity (Hickson, Hinings, Lee, Schneck, & Pennings, 1971). Also, successful resistance may depend on other factors such as the employees’ knowledge and training (Porter & Lawler, 1968), communication skills (Seibold, Cantrill, & Meyers, 1985) and their ability to understand the disposition and attitude of others (Tedeschi, Bonoma, & Schlenker, 1972). Where there is a need to include others in the resistance effort, employees will need to assess their ability to convince others that resistance is the best option for them (Kelman, 1974) or convince others that they have the appropriate knowledge, values and personal qualities (Sankowsky, 1995).

Proposition 8: In assessing the effort required to resist an organizational change effort, employees will consider their own skills and abilities.

Competence and confidence and the decision to resist. When assessing the effort required to resist change, employees may consider their competence and confidence. For example, they may be highly sensitive to the structural qualities of group opposition and unanimity (Asch, 1983), as well as the expectations of their bosses, peers and subordinates (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1975) and the fear of retribution when dealing with higher powers (Arnold & Carnevale, 1997). Also, employees may be poor estimators of their ability to resist, resulting in a general underestimation of the likelihood of success or unrealistically high expectations, especially in the early stages of developing competence (Huczynski, 1996). Therefore, the ability to develop and learn will have implications for subsequent influence attempts (Lawler, 1994; Tandon, Ansari, & Kapoor, 1991), and the incapacity to understand the degree to which a situation is politicized may well result in a failed influence attempt (Pfeffer, 1992b). More importantly, their ability to learn will have an effect on their competence and confidence which should increase as they move from lower to higher levels of readiness (Hersey & Blanchard, 1993). This typically involves a four-stage learning cycle (O’Connor & Seymour, 1990):

• Unconscious incompetence. Although seeking to influence others, the employees are unaware of how ineffective they are.
• Conscious incompetence. The employees learn how incompetent they are and how they could become more effective employees.
• Conscious competence. The learning and application of techniques and principles is initially artificial and uncomfortable and the employees are very aware of what they do and say, but the number of influencing successes increases.
• Unconscious competence. The application of the principles and techniques becomes automatic or second nature.

Proposition 9: In assessing the effort required to resist an organizational change effort, employees will consider their confidence and competence.

Assessment of the risks involved and the decision to resist. In deciding how to deal with the change, employees may assess the risks associated with intervention. This assessment will be based on factors such as the positioning of other employees in relation to the change effort and the timing of the implementation activity. For example, this assessment of risk will be important if resistance activity is perceived as political activity by key organizational players (Cropanzano, Howes, Grandey, & Toth, 1997), and if there is a possibility that sanctions will be applied, especially if those with power to apply sanctions perceive intervention as contrary to the organization’s interests (Guth & MacMillan, 1986). Hence, identified risks may reduce the employees’ motivation to intervene. Guth and MacMillan (1986) argue that resisting during implementation carries a higher risk of sanctions than taking a position during decision making, even in highly authoritarian organizations where taking a position is discouraged. They reason that taking a position during decision making could be rationalized as an effort to contribute to the organization’s interests, whereas resisting a decision after it has been made would constitute a clear and unequivocal challenge to general management and the legitimacy of the decision-making process.

Proposition 10: The decision to resist an organizational change effort will include an assessment of the risks involved in resisting.

Resistance behavior – the employees actually resist the change effort. Having discovered that a change effort is to occur, having gone through a process of attribution, having had an emotional reaction, and then having decided to resist, employees are now ready for action. That is, they are ready to use their power to influence others and resist the implementation of change. Hay and Härtel (1997) argue that organizational influence refers to the use of power to have an effect on the making of a decision or its implementation within the workplace. They also argue that organizational politics is a narrower concept related to the use of power in a way that is not formally sanctioned by an organization to have an effect on the making of decisions or their implementation in the workplace. In the context of this model, the term “resistance” is ascribed an even more specific meaning, referring to the behavior of employees directed toward resisting an organizational change effort. Hay and Härtel (1997) demonstrate that in these situations, influence can be directed at either the decision-making process or the implementation process, and also that the use of influence during implementation is rarely researched. Hence, this article focuses on how employees decide to resist an organizational change effort during implementation.

When employees resist a change effort, resistance can manifest itself in many ways. It can be overt or covert, explicit or implicit, immediate or deferred (Robbins & Barnwell, 1994). Resistance that is overt, explicit and immediate is easiest for change leaders to identify and deal with, while resistance that is covert, implicit and deferred is more problematic. Deferred resistance is particularly difficult for the change leaders to deal with because of the blurred link with the real source of resistance (Robbins & Barnwell, 1994). Only in the past few years has concerted attention been paid to theorizing resistance, an effort that coincides with an emerging broader interest in developing a critical theory of workplace subjectivity (Jermier et al., 1994).

Discussion

HRM departments often are charged with the design and management of organizational change programs. Change leaders need to ensure that the change fits the needs of the organization, but also they should expect that people who are antagonistic to the change may resist it and often will try to sabotage it. Consequently, an important consideration in change management initiatives is the assessment of the likelihood of resistance and the ability of employees to undermine the change effort. Little research is available, however, which examines the predictors or underlying mechanisms of employee reactions to implementation of change efforts. Therefore theoretical frameworks are required to guide practitioners and researchers in the consideration of resistance to change in designing and implementing change programs.

This article argues for the importance of the conceptual perspective of organizations adopted when implementing a change effort. It contends that a political metaphor is most appropriate in considerations of resistance to change because this perspective of organizations highlights the diversity of values and interests at play within an organization and the resistance arising from these differences. Through the political metaphor change leaders will be better able to challenge the basic assumption of common purpose and will think of organizations as political arenas in which political behavior is not necessarily deviant. The political metaphor is more applicable to understanding resistance to change because it acknowledges the importance of organizational culture and that resistance is often a result of the employees’ subjective conceptions of what is desirable. It recognizes that employees tend to resist when they believe that change will be detrimental to their working life and the roles they value, and that employees often will perceive change as a disturbance to well-established routine. It acknowledges that employees will expend effort on identifying change activity and labeling it according to their perceptions of what is happening. It accepts that employees who want a particular change often will label those who do not as presenting obstacles and resistance, and that employees who want stability may speak of perseverance and commitment among those who share their views. Although their behavior may be identical, it will be the individual employee’s stance relative to each other that dictates the choice of language. And finally, the political metaphor recognizes that resistance may vary across space, time and particular situations.

The theoretical model presented aims to explain how employees decide to resist the implementation of an organizational change effort and to identify the key factors that affect the employee decision to resist during change implementation. Empirical research investigating the propositions derived from the model is required. The model proposes that resistance has an initiating event (discovery) and an outcome (resistance behavior), and that there are three intermediary elements (the interacting elements of attribution and emotional reaction followed by the decision to resist), each of which is shaped by a number of key variables. The initiating event triggers independently both an attribution and an emotional reaction with the attribution and emotional reaction interacting, each affecting the other. The emotional reaction affects, in turn, the decision-making process to resist, and the resistance decision leads to resistance behavior.

The model identifies areas requiring specific attention in the management of change. Namely, HR practices, policies and interventions aimed at change implementation should address a) how and when news about change efforts is distributed, b) the cultural dimensions of orientation towards change, orientation towards communication, orientation to the individual (that is, humanism), and orientation toward participation, c) the climate dimensions of trust, social-emotional support and organizational justice, and d) the risk of resistance by educating employees about the benefits of change and the negative effects which would be incurred if the change program were not undertaken. Further, the model highlights the effect of change programs on emotional reactions. Consequently, HRM activities should include the monitoring of employee emotional well-being during change implementation.

The model highlights for HR practitioners five areas that trigger the emotional stress or tension employees experience as a result of change programs. These areas are a) the discovery of new or additional information regarding change, b) the emotional characteristics of the employees affected by the change, c) the employees’ assessments of the reason for the change (i.e., attributional appraisal), d) informational cues relating to the change effort, and e) the organizational environment. HR practitioners can reduce excessive tension arising from discovery of change initiatives by providing the news in a timely and credible manner. Employees should learn of change developments from management rather than from other sources such as the media or the organizational grapevine. Information should contain sufficient detail on the motivation, timing and scope of the change as well as decision procedures and transition support mechanisms. Employees’ assessments of the reason for the change will be affected by the sufficiency, consistency and accuracy of the information provided, and the credibility and trust attached to the information source. Thus, an organizational environment with a history of positive employer-employee relations and characterized by trust, open communication, employee involvement in change efforts, and perceptions of procedural justice will minimize excessive negative emotional responses. Organizations that offer employees the opportunity to provide input and exercise some control over the pace, structure and decision criteria for change relevant to them are also more likely to avert emotional stress in their employees. Further, an understanding of the emotional characteristics of employees will enable managers to anticipate which organizational members are likely to have stronger negative emotional responses to change news. Managers may meet with these individuals to surface these concerns and mutually discuss ways that these concerns can or are being addressed, perhaps involving the affected parties in some aspect of the change effort. Additionally, managers should ensure that information and support services relating to their employees’ concerns are clear and easily available.

A principle that HR practitioners need to keep foremost is that the decision to resist change efforts is considerably affected by employees’ emotional reactions to change efforts. These emotional reactions are greatly affected by past and current HR practices and policies within the organization. The model described identifies some key areas that HR needs to manage to reduce negative resistance to change initiatives.

References

Ackerman, L. S. (1982, Summer). Transition management: An in-depth look at managing complex change. Organizational Dynamics, 46-66.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Arnold, J. A., & Carnevale, P. J. (1997). Preferences for dispute resolution procedures as a function of intentionality, consequences, expected future interaction, and power. Journal of Social Psychology, 27(5), 371-398.

Asch, S. E. (1983). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgements. In R. W. Allen, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Organizational influence processes (pp. 260-269). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Ashkanasy, N. M., & Gallois, C. (1994). Leader attributions and evaluations: Effects of locus of control, supervisory control, and task control. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 59, 27-50.

Ashkanasy, N. M., Jordan, P. J., & Härtel, C. E. J. (1998). Advancement in the measurement of emotional intelligence in work teams: The workplace emotional intelligence profile. Australian Journal of Psychology, 50 (Suppl.), 14.

Axelrod, D. (1993, January). Change no longer is a choice for companies. HR Focus, 17.

Berger, C. R. (1985). Social power and interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 439-499). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1991). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brass, D. J., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 441-470.

Brislin, R. W. (1991). The art of getting things done: A practical guide to the use of power. New York: Praeger.

Broadfoot, L., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (1994, May). A survey of organisational culture measurement instruments. Paper presented at the 23rd meeting of Australian Social Psychologists, Cairns, Australia.

Brockner, J., Siegel, P. A., Daly, J. P., Tyler, T., & Martin, C. (1997). When trust matters: The moderating effect of outcome favorability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 558-583.

Buchanan, D. A. (1997). The limitations and opportunities of business process re-engineering in a politicized organizational climate. Human Relations, 50, 51-72.

Carr, C. (1994, February). 7 keys to successful change. Training, 55-58.

Child, J. (1984). Organisation: A guide to problems and practice. (2nd ed.). London: Harper & Row.

Child, J., & Smith, C. (1987). The context and process of organisational transformation - Cadbury limited in its sector. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 565-593.

Cobb, A. T. (1986). Political diagnosis: Applications in organizational development. Academy of Management Review, 11, 482-496.

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512-532.

Cody, M. J., & McLaughlin, M. L. (1980). Perceptions of compliance-gaining situations: A dimensional analysis. Communication Monographs, 47, 132-148.

Coghlan, D. (1993). A person-centred approach to dealing with resistance to change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 14(4), 10-14.

Collinson, D. (1994). Strategies of resistance: Power knowledge and subjectivity in the workplace. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations (pp. 25-68). London: Routledge.

Coopey, J., & Hartley, J. (1990). Reconsidering the case for organisational commitment. Human Resource Management Journal, 1(13), 18-32.

Cropanzano, R., Howes, J. C., Grandey, A. A., & Toth, P. (1997). The relationship of organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18(2), 159-180.

Daft, R., & Weik, K. E. (1994). Strategic change and the environment. In C. Hardy (Ed.), Managing strategic action: Mobilising change (pp. 80-93). London: Sage.

Denison, D. R. (1984). Bringing corporate culture to the bottom line. Organizational Dynamics, 13, 59-76.

Dunford, R. (1987). The suppression of technology as a strategy for controlling resource dependence. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 512-525.
Dunford, R. W. (1992). Organisational behaviour: An organisational analysis perspective. Sydney: Addison-Wesley.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507.

Elliott, R. D. (1990). The challenge of managing change. Personnel Journal, 69(3), 40-49.

Erez, M., & Rim, Y. (1982). The relationship between goals, influence tactics, and personal and organizational variables. Human Relations, 35, 871-878.

Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political influence perspective. Journal of Management, 17, 447-488.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Folger, R., & Konovski, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.

Frijda, N. H. (1993). Mopods, emotion episodes and emotions. In M. Lewis, & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 381-403). New York: Guilford Press.

Gallagher, K., Rose, E., McClelland, B., Reynolds, J., & Tombs, S. (1997). People in organisations: An active learning approach. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Garratt, B. (1994). The learning organization: And the need for directors who think. Hammersmith, UK: Harper Collins.

Geyer, P. (1995, April). How different people approach change. Management, 14-15.

Gough, H., & Härtel, C. E. J. (1998, December). Emotional climate and emotional competence as determinants of customer and employee satisfaction with service encounters: A theoretical model. Refereed Proceedings of the 12th International Conference of the Australia New Zealand Academy of Management, CD-ROM, Adelaide, South Australia.

Graham, J. W. (1990). Principled organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Personality and organizational influence (pp. 235-286). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Guth, W. D., & Macmillan, I. C. (1986). Strategy implementation versus middle management self-interest. Strategic Management Journal, 7, 313-327.

Härtel, C. E. J., & Berry, M. E. In search of a unified definition of organisational politics: Evidence for the multi-level approach. Journal of the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 5(1), 26-34.

Härtel, C. E. J., & Härtel, G. F. (1997, September). SHAPE-assisted intuitive decision-making and problem solving: Information-processing-based training for conditions of cognitive busyness. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(3), 187-199.

Härtel, C. E. J., McColl-Kennedy, J. R., & McDonald, L. (1998).

Integrating attributional theory with the theory of reasoned to produce a contingency predictive model of consumer reactions to organizational mishaps. In J. W. Alba, & J. W. Hutchinson (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 25, pp. 428-432). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.

Harvey, J. H., Orbuch, T. L., & Weber, A. L. (1992). Convergence of the attribution and accounts concepts in the study of close relationships. In J. H. Harvey, T. L. Orbuch, & A. L. Weber (Eds.), Attributions, accounts, and close relationships (pp. 1-18). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hay, P. D., & Härtel, C. E. J. (1997, February). The influence framework: A theoretical bridge between power and organisational effectiveness. (Management Paper Series #35). Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland, Graduate School of Management.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1993). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., & Pennings, J. M. (1971). A strategic contingencies’ theory of intraorganizational power. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16(2), 216-229.

Huczynski, A. (1996). Influencing in organizations: Getting in, rising up and moving on. London: Prentice-Hall.

Jermier, J. M., Knights, D., & Nord, W. R. (1994). Introduction: Resistance and power in organizations: Agency subjectivity and the labour process. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations (pp. 1-24). London: Routledge.

Jones, E. J., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: Learning Press.

Kahn, E. F. (1982). Critical themes in the study of change. In P. S. Goodman & Associates (Eds.), Change in organizations: New perspectives on theory, research and practice (pp. 409-429). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kanter, R. M. (1984). The change masters: Corporate entrepreneurs at work. London: Unwin.

Kelley, H. H. (1967) Attribution theory in social psychology. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 15. Current Theory and Research in Motivation (pp. 192-240). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Kelman, H. C. (1974). Further thoughts on the processes of compliance, identification and internalization. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Perspectives on social power (pp. 125-171). Chicago: Aladine.

Kipnis, D., Schmidt, S. M., Swaffin-Smith, C., & Wilkinson, I. (1984, Winter). Patterns of managerial influence: Shotgun managers, tacticians, and bystanders. Organizational Dynamics, 58-67.

Knights, D. & Vurdubakis (1994). Foucault, power, resistance and all that. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations (pp. 167-198). London: Routledge.

Kopelman, R. E., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1990). The role of climate and culture in productivity. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (pp. 282-318). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kotter, J. P. & Schlesinger, L.A. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 106-114.

Lawler, E. E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Lawler, E. E. (1994). Motivation in work organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Margerison, C. (1979). How to assess your management style. New York: MCB Human Resources Ltd.

Martin, P., & Nicholls, J. (1987). Creating a committed workforce. London: McGraw-Hill.

Matlin, M. W. (1995). Psychology (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.

McAllister, D. (1995). Affect- and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59.

McClelland, D. C. (1975). Power: The inner experience. New York: Irvington.

Meyerson, D. & Martin, J. (1987). Cultural change: An integration of three different views. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 623-647.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Mullins, L. J. (1996). Management and organizational behaviour (4th ed.). London: Pitman.

O’Connor, J. & Seymour, J. (1990). Introducing neuro-linguistic programming. London: Mandala/Harper Collins.

O’Reilly, C. (1991). Corporations, culture and commitment: Motivation and social control in organizations. In R. M. Steers, & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (5th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Ouchi, W., & Maguire, M. (1975). Organization control: Two functions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 559-567.

Parker, C. P., Dipboye, L., & Jackson, S. L. (1995). Perceptions of organizational politics: An investigation of antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 21, 891-912.

Parry, K. (1996). Transformational leadership: Developing an enterprising management culture. London: Pitman.

Paterson, J. (1983). Bureaucratic reform by cultural revolution. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 10, 6-13.

Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making. London: Tavistock.

Pettigrew, A. (1985). The awakening giant: Continuity and change in imperial chemical industries. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Pettigrew, A. (1987). Context and action in the transformation of the firm. Journal of Management Studies, 24, 649-670.

Petty, M. M., Beadles, N. A., Lowery, C., Chapman, D. F., & Connell, D. W. (1995). Relationships between organizational culture and organizational performance. Psychological Reports, 76, 483-492.

Pfeffer, J. (1992a). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Pfeffer, J. (1992b). Understanding power in organizations. California Management Review, 34(2), 29-50.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1975). Determinants of supervisory behavior: A role set analysis. Human Relations, 28, 139-154.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

Porter, L.W., & Lawler, F. E. (1968). Managerial attitudes and performance. Homewood, IL: R. D. Irwin.

Roberts, K. H., Rousseau, D. M., & La Porte, T. R. (1990). The cultures of high reliability military organizations. Journal of High Technology Management, 8, 275-289.

Robbins, S. P., & Barnwell, N. (1994). Organization theory in Australia. New York: Prentice-Hall.

Sankowsky, D. (1995, Spring). The charismatic leader as narcissist: Understanding the abuse of power. Organizational Dynamics, 57-71.

Seibold, D. R., Cantrill, J. G., & Meyers, R. A. (1985). Communication and interpersonal influence. In M. L. Knapp, & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 551-611). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Tandon, K., Ansari, M. A., & Kapoor, A. (1991). Attributing upward influence attempts in organizations. Journal of Psychology, 125(1), 59-63.

Tagiuri, R., & Litwin, G. H. (Eds.) (1968). Organizational climate: Explorations of a concept. Boston: Harvard University, Graduate School of Administration.

Tedeschi, J. T., Bonoma, T. V., & Schlenker, B. R. (1972). Influence, decision and compliance. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence processes (pp. 346-418). Chicago: Aldine.

Tjosvold, D. (1985). Power and social context in superior-subordinate interaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35(3), 281-293.

Toffler, A. (1970). Future shock. London: Pan Books.

Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility. New York: Guildford Press.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 18, 1-74.

Yukl, G. A. (1989). Leadership in organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Phil Hay is currently a liaison officer for the Minister for Education in Queensland, Australia. He has extensive experience with change leadership and policy processes including overcoming individual and organizational resistance. Currently he is completing his doctorate in the area of change program management at the Graduate School of Management at the University of Queensland, Australia. phil.hay@qed.qld.gov.au

Charmine E. J. Härtel, Ph.D., is a senior lecturer and HRM/OB/IR area coordinator for the Graduate School of Management at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. She has 26 years of industry experience and 13 years of international industry consulting experience with companies such as GE, IBM, and AirServices Australia. Currently, her teaching, writing and consulting activities focus on cross-cultural and interpersonal work relationships; organizational and individual difference factors influencing attitudes, behaviors, information process, and emotions at work; and compatibility of organizational factors with human factors to enhance employee safety, well-being and performance. c.hartel@gsm.uq.edu.au