Understanding and Addressing Resistance to Organizational Change
by
Kristin N. Kusmierek
Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education
University of Michigan
Occasional Papers on Institutional Change and Transformation in Higher Education

This paper was prepared under the direction of Prof. Marvin W. Peterson for the project on Managing Institutional Change and Transformation in Higher Education at the University of Michigan. The series is part of a University of Michigan project supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation as a part of the Kellogg Forum on Higher Education Transformation

Revision April 2001

Managing Institutional Change and Transformation Project Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education
2117 SEB
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48105

ABSTRACT
Organizational change is a topic of increasing interest in both business and education, with resistance to change as a key concept. Correspondingly, a global context of change for institutions of higher education-especially in countries where political, economic, and social transformations have demanded rapid transformations of education-suggests broader application of knowledge in this area. Various conceptions of resistance, both individual- and systems-grounded, are discussed. Various psychological explanations lend insight, as do theories that broaden the attribution of resistance to managers and the entire organizational system. Recommendations for change leaders advocate a humanistic approach that incorporates systems-level understanding.

INTRODUCTION: RESISTING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

Organizational change-its precursors, its mechanisms, and its outcome-is a topic of increasing interest and study in both business and education. The external environment, including the economic, political, and cultural dimensions of society is rapidly changing, growing in complexity and posing numerous influences that have been previously insignificant or unacknowledged by society's institutions. Correspondingly, varieties of changes in organizational structure, ideology, and behaviors of our educational and business organizations have been increasingly demanded, amidst calls for immediate consideration of the shifting terms of the larger environment. In this setting, the success of change is of great concern, in terms of organizational control and leadership and of economic and social consequence.

In the quest to understand the characteristics of both successful and failed organizational change efforts, researchers and practitioners have identified resistance to change as a primary concept. Although resistance remains largely undefined in many of the discussions about it, its existence is generally regarded as common knowledge and is easily captured in people's experience and imagination. Dent and Galloway Goldberg (1999) find this notion of resistance as a given fact to be a 30-year old conventional wisdom that should be disregarded, arguing that the emphasis on resistance-especially in planning organizational innovations-negatively affects change efforts. Nevertheless, resistance resides in most management texts and attracts much attention.

Agocs (1997) compiles a commonly understood definition of resistance from the literature: the behavior of individuals, small groups, or categories of employees who do not support changes that management wishes to implement. Although a common usage, not all researchers and practitioners hold fast to this definition. In fact, several scholars (Agocs, 1997; Spreitzer and Quinn, 1996; Molinsky, 1999) assert that resistance occurs not only in employees, but also in managers, executives, complete systems, and organizations. Agocs (1997) offers a definition of "institutional resistance" as the "pattern of organizational behaviour that decision makers in organizations employ to actively deny, reject, refuse to implement, repress or even dismantle change proposals and initiatives," shifting the blame for failed change efforts to those in power. Critical responses like these, however, are less prevalent, albeit constructive.

In expanding the common concept of resistance as it applies to organizational change, Wicks (1998) explicitly acknowledges compliance as a necessary counterpart to resistance, both housed within power relationships among the individuals and roles of an organization. Compliance, the behavior of employees as they follow the structures and systems established by the organization, is assumed in organizational operations; it is generally viewed as the essential behavior that allows functioning institutions. Its counterpart, resistance, becomes the behavior of individuals who oppose the structures and systems established by the organization-particularly when those structures and systems are newly proposed or implemented. Much of the literature on resistance, as will be discussed shortly, concurs. Resistance governs failures, whether its root cause be resource shortages, infrastructure weaknesses, employees or managers, or other factors discussed later in this paper. Watson (1996) states the clear conclusion: reducing resistance to change is crucial to the success of change efforts. The goal of this paper is to outline the current conceptions of resistance as a component of organizational change efforts and to determine recommendations for managing resistance.

RELEVANCE: BRIDGING DISCIPLINES AND CULTURES

Much of the literature that will be discussed in this paper stems from the business realm, yet will be applied to higher education. Although some scholars argue that educational organizations do not mimic corporate or industry organizations, either in terms of economic decision-making (Winston, 1999) or in the history or ideology that govern institutional choices (Gumport, 2000), many scholars and practitioners have come to assign business diagnostics and prescriptions to educational institutions. In fact, both in the U.S. and throughout the world, education has become increasingly connected to the rules of market economies. This trend is familiar in the U.S., as educational institutions realize the benefit of aligning with industry and of responding to student demands, workforce needs, and other influences that have long existed, but rarely with the economic and political weight they now carry. Even individuals who deny that educational institutions respond to the same dynamics of business often admit the increasing effects of economic conceptions traditionally reserved for business.

Outside the U.S., many scholars have begun to consider similar impacts on national, cross-national, and even world systems of education (Ginsberg et al., 1990). Some have compared U.S. and European universities, asserting a set of changes in the external environment that are felt cross-nationally, in what Sporn (1999) deems a "complex and postindustrial environment." She notes the common influences on educational systems across national boundaries: the restructuring of economies, the changing the role of the state, shifting demographics, new technologies, and increasing globalization. Furthermore, Sporn cites common patterns of institutional response, specifically: university reorganization; transformed leadership, management, and governance; enhanced quality, program review, and evaluation; applied research and technology transfer; financial accounting and fundraising; and personnel restructuring. These responses parallel business behaviors and demonstrate the overlapping applicability of approaches.

Of note, of course, in these endeavors is the omnipresence of change in the social institution of higher education, presumed traditionally to be static and stable. Indeed, scholars note that, internationally, most countries' change efforts have been traditionally problem-focused, gradual, and incremental (Cerych, 1999; La Belle and Ward, 1990). Times are changing, however, and numerous countries are undergoing changes in education's organization and structure to accommodate greater devolution of centralized authority, new managerial needs, and demands of institutional autonomy (Hall & Thomas, 1999; La Belle and Ward, 1990). A few countries are undergoing extreme and immediate reform, based on the demands of major political, social, and economic upheaval. La Belle and Ward (1990) feel obligated to replace the term "change" with "transformation" for these countries, defining the term through an endnote definition from Webster's Third New International Dictionary: "a complete or essential change in composition or structure." Emphasizing the educational systems of countries that have undergone such transformations, La Belle and Ward (1990) select Algeria, China, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Mozambique and Nicaragua as demonstrating the increasing links between political, economic, and educational environments of a decade ago. Now a number of former Soviet states throughout Europe and Asia are trying to maneuver through similar significant changes.

In this global scenario, understanding the organizational/institutional dynamics of change and adaptation becomes crucial. The research is slowly being collected that draws parallels-including parallels among patterns of resistance-between the understandings we have gained in the U.S. and the systems of other countries that are currently encountering major change. Despite little research beyond state-level implications, some studies suggest that former Soviet states encounter hurdles similar to those described in the U.S. and Western European literature. La Belle and Ward (1990) offer one of few compilations, noting the significance of world-wide educational change, particularly in countries in which education functions as a mechanism of maintenance and selection for those in power. The concerns of Central and Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and an array of former Soviet states have drawn considerable attention. Their efforts to adapt educational systems to newly established market economies are fertile for research on organizational adaptation in environments of clear and immediate demands. Zachariev (1999) notes these institutions' struggle to adopt new forms of management, to institute changes without sufficient preparation, to manage diversity without engaging the natural tendency toward uniformity (that is, to sustain change once implemented), and "to transform the style of management to prevent vestiges of authoritarianism from having repercussions at the regional or local level" (p. 35).

Many of the international solutions sound familiar to both U.S. business and higher education reform. Sowa (1999) notes that Polish universities have undertaken three basic change strategies in the last decade: the strategy of restructuring (i.e., introducing profound changes, including management restructuring), the strategy of adaptation (i.e., non-revolutionary change to moderate the impacts of financial crises, market demands, etc.), and strategy for survival (i.e., vital and immediate surface changes). Substantive change has been slow, as centralization and bureaucratization have been disguised within new systems. Similarly, Hall & Thomas (1999) in the School of Economic Studies in Mongolia found attempts to thwart cultural resistance by developing small faculty groups to break insular tendencies of academic departments. Avis (1990) notes the legacy of resistance inherent on many countries encountering major transformation after the dissolution of the Soviet Union:

Of course, resistance to reform, procrastination and non-co-operation are familiar features of the social and economic development of Soviet society. [Higher education institution] staff and administration could connive with students to avoid expulsions and sackings. Misuse of private-study freedom and incompetent handling of tutorial work could worsen student attainment indicators-the opposite of the stated aims of the new methods. Faced with that sort of eventuality, the old lax assessment procedures might resurface. Almost certainly instances of this sort will occur, just as pessimistic talk about the reform is common (p. 11).

Profound and sustainable changes, even among systems encountering profound needs, are resisted. Within this global context, explorations not only of institutional change, but of resistance to it, become critical.

THEORIES, MODELS, APPROACHES TO RESISTANCE

Resistance most often takes the conceptual form as a psychological concept, of and in the humans of the organization. Dent and Galloway Goldberg (1999) illuminate the current conception of resistance-that people resist change and managers must overcome their resistance-but argue that it is a misconstrual of Lewin's original notion developed in the 1940s. Lewin, they argue, asserted a systems phenomenon not a psychological one-resistance within a system of roles, attitudes, behaviors, norms, etc., which dynamically interact. He conceived the three stages of change as 1.) an unfreezing or disruption of the initial state, 2.) a disturbance with various adaptive options considered or potentially attempted, and 3.) a consolidation of change or refreezing (Marrow, 1972, in Dent and Galloway Goldberg, 1999). The system is complex and dynamic in this vision, with both barriers and positive forces influencing the change process. In this vision, resistance can not lie only in one component of the system and is a natural part of the interactions, even within the disequilibrium of the change process.

Dent and Galloway Goldberg (1999) assert that, throughout the 1950s, scholars shifted from viewing resistance as a natural force to resistance as an employee-imposed obstacle. Thus began the stream of recommendations to managers to communicate thoroughly, time change carefully, remain non-threatening in stance and stature, etc., in order to best facilitate change. This approach, although still predominant in the literature, is contrary to recent findings of Spreitzer and Quinn (1996) that the employees can be eager, while senior executives resist. To display the predominance of the former approach, Dent and Galloway Goldberg (1999) describe a small set of contemporary management textbooks, finding that most texts argue that employees can and should be managed so that change will be accepted. They highlight Kreitner (1992) who asserts that successful management foresees and neutralizes resistance; Griffin (1993), Aldag and Stearns (1991), Schermerhom (1989), who assert that employees can be manipulated in order to delay resistance or minimize the need to promise benefits; and Dubrin and Ireland (1993) who attribute resistance to three employee fears that can be circumvented:

  1. fear of negative outcomes
  2. fear of the unknown
  3. fear of the flaws seen in the management's plan
Dent and Galloway Goldberg respond negatively to such textbook prescriptions for manager manipulation of employees, although they acknowledge people's fears. "People may resist loss of status, loss of pay, or loss of comfort, but these are not the same as resisting change," they argue. "The belief that people do resist change causes all kinds of unproductive actions within organizations" (Dent & Galloway Goldberg, 1999).

While some research addresses resistance specifically, it is often implicit, embedded in research or "best practice" pieces on the failure of change efforts. Morrison (1998) provides a set of four significant categorizations of barriers to change from Dalin (1978) and Dalin et al. (1993). These provide a helpful framework not only for obstacles to change, but the array of types of resistance discussed in the literature:

  1. VALUE BARRIERS: If the change challenges a value system of the participants or if the values proposed in the change are not consistent with those of the participants, change is likely to be resisted.
  2. POWER BARRIERS: Change can be viewed in terms of the power it has to wield to participants. If it offers too little power to participants or perhaps even lessens or constrains power, it is unlikely to be accepted. Participants may accept an innovation if it brings them greater power.
  3. PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIERS: Change can be viewed as a threat to any one of a number of comfortable states. People are likely to resist change that challenges security, confidence, emotional well-being and homeostasis.
  4. PRACTICAL BARRIERS: Change can demand a new set of skills or attributes from the members of an organization. If change threatens to "deskill" participants or if the investment they need to make in "reskilling" is too daunting, resistance is likely. Resistance is promoted if resources (e.g. materials, people, time, money, space, administrative support, and expertise) are perceived to be insufficient to support the change. (In Morrison, 1998)
Interestingly, despite the separate categorization of psychological barriers, all four categories can be seen as humanistic, grounded in the perceptions and needs of the individuals of the organization. Only the fourth, practical barriers, can be interpreted as resource, infrastructure, or other need external to the individual. These practical items appear to be discussed not as elements of resistance, but as general factors that inhibit change. For purposes here, they will not take a significant role. Other scholars offer alternate typologies of resistance, but these appear to capture similar issues (Morrison, 1998).

These causes of resistance are expanded by scholars who emphasize psychological models as explanations of resistance. Much of this work is multifaceted in approach, focusing not on one theory or model but on the multiple feelings and personal responses that change initiatives generate. Judson (1991), acknowledging the psychological and social dynamics that govern people's behavior generally, identifies feelings about norms, trust, and security as the locus of concern during change. He summarizes critical areas:

These broad categories encompass well the variety discussed in the literature. The array can be deafening: Will the change impact my salary or chance for promotion? Will my job still be needed-and in its current form? Do I want to suffer through the change, or is it merely an inconvenience I can do without? Will I like my job as much in the new system? What will my relationships be like with my peers and others with whom I work? Will I be satisfied with the people and system that oversee my activities? Do I believe in this change-or will my beliefs be constantly at odds with what the organization is becoming?

Much of the literature contains two types of recommendations in response to the dizzying array of concerns employees have about change. One is an abstract set of managerial responses. The management techniques Judson (1991) suggests range from compulsion or persuasion (neglecting the concerns), to offering security and reassurance about the potential for positive outcomes, to demonstrating understanding and empathy for resistance, to personal involvement in change and adjustments, through the acceptance of criticism and implementation of modifications based on dialogue with those concerned about the change efforts.

The second type of recommendation focuses on concrete conditions under which employees would be more likely to comply with change. Watson (1966), for example, suggests that resistance is diminished under a set of conditions conducive to alleviating the concerns of employees:

Ultimately, both emphasizing managerial responses and assessing conditions appear to address similar issues, as an evaluation of conditions appears a wise precursor to taking managerial action.

Another set of literature drawn from psychology specifically advocates motivation and incentives as crucial elements in causing people to either comply with or resist new initiatives. Models depend on one's philosophy about human motivations (Morrison, 1998). For example, to believe that humans are rational and driven by economic values leads one to believe that economic incentives alleviate resistance. To believe that humans are social creatures leads to an emphasis on relationships, interactions, and fulfillment of psychological needs, such as self-esteem. The rational-economic model highlights external motivations such as pay, status, supervision, working conditions, job security, while the social model emphasizes intrinsic needs such as interest in work tasks, job satisfaction, and self-esteem. Morrison (1998) asserts that the extrinsic factors may satisfy a more essential need than the loftier intrinsic factors. One can not, for instance, buy food without adequate pay so, at the margin, resisting pay cuts might be more essential than having a rewarding job.

Many prescriptive works follow similar, albeit not as clearly specified, paths. Many merely attribute resistance to employees, insinuating psychological rationales, and offer suggestions to managers and change leaders. Beer, Eisenstat, and Spector's (1990) "Why Change Programs Don't Produce Change" offers a good example of work that never explicitly discusses resistance, yet prescribes antidotes to failed change efforts:

  1. Mobilize commitment to change through joint diagnosis of business problems.
  2. Develop a shared vision of how to organize and manage for competitiveness.
  3. Foster consensus for the new vision, competence to enact it, and cohesion to move it along.
  4. Spread revitalization to all departments without pushing it from the top.
  5. Institutionalize revitalization through formal policies, systems, and structures.
  6. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the revitalization process
These suggestions mimic recommendations typically given to prevent resistance among employees. Instead of neglecting the actions of leaders completely, however, Beer et al. highlight the benefits of professional development for change leaders-although never are the leaders seen as resistant, only requiring additional training to enact the recommendations and prevent further resistance among employees. Kotter (1995) implies similar methods of empowering the workforce, with eight steps to ensuring a successful organizational transformation:
  1. Establishing a sense of urgency
  2. Forming a powerful guiding coalition
  3. Creating a vision
  4. Communicating a vision
  5. Empowering others to act on the vision
  6. Planning for and creating short-term wins
  7. Consolidating improvements and producing still more changes
  8. Institutionalizing new approaches
Kotter contributes the notion of enthusiasm as a motivational force.

Two theories similarly reliant on psychology attempt to explain resistance and overcoming it: expectancy theory and social exchange theory (Morrison, 1998). Both theories have been adapted to business workplaces and are commonly used in business and educational realms for other purposes. Expectancy theory asserts that people will participate in change if they expect it to be worthwhile and beneficial. The higher the perceived benefits, the greater the likelihood of compliance. Exchange theory asserts that a person will participate in change if something is offered in return. The exchange can be based on an obligation. For example, a participant in change may comply based on an unspecified reward to be forthcoming, common in resource-constrained educational settings.

Implicit in each of these sets of obstacles and theories is a cause of resistance, but these categories do not identify the form the resistance takes. What do participants do to resist change efforts? Senge (1990) offers a continuum of people's reactions to change, from apathy or non-compliance, grudging compliance, formal compliance, genuine compliance, enrollment, and finally commitment. Such continua are common in the literature, implying not only the form that resistance might take but also the degree of impedance toward the change initiative.

In a similar chain of reactions and behaviors, some theorists describe reactions in terms of grief and mourning theories (Morrison, 1998). Numerous approaches that appear to capture all or part of the stages noted by Adams et al. (1976):

  1. immobilization
  2. disbelief
  3. depression
  4. acceptance of reality of change
  5. testing new practices, behaviors
  6. searching for meaning in the change or rationalizing
  7. internalization of change
It is suggested that individuals first respond with a "deer-in-headlights" immobilization and thereafter move through the stages as one might cope with death, in order to come to terms with the change. These theories appear to assert that, given enough time and support, individuals will naturally accept a change. The pace of progression and the form of interim resistance may align with the wider array of theories.

From a more critical perspective, Wicks' (1998) discussion of compliance and resistance, outlined earlier, asserts that resistance behaviors are not all negative in result and may be beneficial to the organization. In his conception, individuals' reactions to change can be characterized in two ways, responsive or formative. Responsive behaviors react directly to the change mandate and are, thus, easiest to predict. On the other hand, formative responses take on a more resistant shape and are governed by a belief that the system and the individual interact in a dynamic relationship. Responses then, according to Wicks, fall into one of four categories:

  1. responsive-beneficial behaviors (e.g., organizational citizenship behavior)
  2. responsive-detrimental (e.g., subtle subversion)
  3. formative-beneficial (e.g., conditional effort)
  4. formative-detrimental (e.g., sabotage)
Responsive-beneficial behaviors are the most compliant, with formative-detrimental at the opposite extreme. Responsive-detrimental displays some of the fear and individual negotiation with a new system that much of the other resistance literature implies. The formative-beneficial behaviors, however, are those that Wicks emphasizes. These, he argues, interact with the system as it changes, adding a creative force that takes nothing for granted but tests the structure of the altered system. This creativity has the potential to provide additional insight that could benefit the organization and enhance future change initiatives.

Other scholars deviate from the employee-psychology models and probe fertile new ground. Schein (1996, in Morrison, 1998), for example, frames organizational failure in terms of failure to learn new processes, procedures, and information. For organizations with learning capacity in this way, he uses a more complex systems perspective. He identifies three cultures within any organization-the executive, the engineering, and the operator cultures-that when misaligned and detached from each other create situations ripe for change failures and resistance. In Schein's vision, the executive culture is comprised of upper-level organizational leaders. The engineering culture is comprised of individuals concerned with basic design elements of products or systems, especially technology and its operation. These two cultures are task-based and externally aligned with professionals with similar job positions and cultures built through schooling or like socialization. The operator culture is different in that it develops internal to an organization, amidst the people who execute the essential operations of the place. These people are oriented toward human-interaction and are bound to the organization in both economic and social ways.

The implications of Schein's (1996) model are helpful in viewing the organization as a system with the potential for resistance existing among various groups for various reasons. Each cultural orientation, for example, is valid from the perspective of the culture's participants. Developers of change strategies are likely to be not only insensitive but also completely unaware of the concerns of the other cultures, especially between the externally oriented two and the operator culture. The solutions that Schein offers to the high probability of change failure are more abstract than practical. He finds good reason to take the concept of culture seriously, acknowledging the complex interactions of today's organizations and the obsolescence of old assumptions and structures. Common with many others, he recommends enhancing communication, especially cross-cultural dialogues. Finally, Schein notes that many scholars-such as Lewin, Argyris, McGregor and Likert-have shown that managers who treat people with respect and involve them in tasks for which they are accountable and who create conditions that employees can obtain feedback and monitor own progress are more effective (Morrison, 1998). Despite a novel conceptualization, the recommendations are ultimately the same: Be nice.

Two final scholars offer interesting insights and join Schein in expanding the vision of resistance. Molinsky (1999) and Agocs (1997) both attribute resistance to managers (primary change agents) as well as to employees, and Molinsky uses an explicit social systems approach. Molinsky asserts a paradox: that the commonly agreed upon preconditions of successful change actually prevent change. Consonant with the high rate of failure among change initiatives, his assessment is that processes internal to the organization render change efforts ineffective. As opposed to finding fault in the employees of the organization, Molinsky argues that just as change leaders manage change, change manages change leaders. The interactions between change and agent are bi-directional. He argues:

  1. that change depends on management, but management makes change less likely
  2. that change depends on the commitment of leaders, but such commitment makes change less likely
  3. that change depends on rhetoric, but rhetoric makes change less likely.
These three can be viewed as separate paradoxes. On management, Molinsky argues that designating a sponsor for change, consonant with the belief that intentional change needs a facilitator to guide the process, constrains the process by narrowing parameters. Furthermore, it emphasizes a win-lose framework by designating a single owner-whether that be an individual or a collective management-that is the emblem of change, potentially fueling negative competition between organizational parts. On leadership commitment, Molinsky argues that the greater the commitment, the more likely the change manager and leader will try to please supervisors, glossing over weaknesses and diluting impact with too many endeavors that look good but reduce overall substance. On rhetoric, commonly translated as "communication" in many lists of remedies, Molinsky argues that a culture of conversation can be very pleasing to superiors but can engrain conversation instead of actual action.

Molinsky (1999) offers a series of metaphors to describe the social system of the organization and a corresponding approach to change initiatives. His first metaphor for the organizational system, that of a surmountable obstacle, warrants attempts to overwhelm the system with change efforts. The second metaphor, the system as a code to be deciphered, calls for increased understanding, warranting intensive problem solving. A metaphor of the system as a blueprint for change requires an analysis of organizational culture and an individualized, tailored approach. He finally concludes that viewing the system as an insurmountable obstacle, necessitating circumventing the system entirely, is the only route to revolutionary change. This final option is the only avenue that is not embedded within the current organizational structure and dependent upon it. This metaphor describes the approach for change that reorganizes and sustains.

Deviating perhaps furthest from the scholars outlined here, Agocs (1997) presents a critical approach to the change literature generally, the theories of resistance specifically. She recalls that often individuals are said to resist change due to habit, fear, inertia, conformity, etc., but she attributes resistance to the organization itself, personified. The beliefs themselves are institutionalized, embedded within the organization, and those in power control resources. These dominant individuals, argues Agocs, also hold the power to resist change when change is threatening to their positions and interests. Her typology of forms of resistance focus on recognizing the resistance of those in managerial roles. Resistance in these scenarios is the managers':

  1. denial of the legitimacy of the need for change, particularly when change would benefit employees.
  2. refusal to recognize responsibility to address the change issue
  3. refusal to implement change initiatives that have been organizationally adopted.
  4. reversal or dismantling of change initiative once implemented
The essential piece of the resistance puzzle illuminated by Agocs is that if the psychological approach is persuasive with regard to employees, the same psychological factors, motivations, fears, incentives to prevent change, etc., should operate for all humans within the organization, regardless of role definition and level of authority. Power differentials exist throughout the organization, and many of the concerns that prompt resistance stem from fear of diminished authority, control, and comfort. Whereas employees fear the shift in power over them, among other things, others in the organization likewise fear the same shifts in power. Everyone has interests to guard.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO PRACTITIONERS GUIDING CHANGE

Obviously, the literature on resistance, whether as a self-standing issues or encapsulated by discussions of failed change strategies, is extensive and diverse (Figure 1). Many recommendations have been advanced and, undoubtedly, followed. Perhaps a telling sign, however, is that resistance still exists as a common conception that accompanies discussions of change. Resistance continues to loom strong either in actual change endeavors or in the minds of change leaders. Whereas some have argued that to understand resistance is to rid change efforts of it and ensure successful innovation, it appears that resistance is an inherent accompaniment to change, a natural and ongoing result of human interactions with their environments as well as with the systems they create and maintain. Without dreading or fearing resistance, we must acknowledge it not only as an inevitable part of change endeavors, but also as an inevitable component of everyday life in organizations of all types.

Within the multiplicity of approaches, several commonalities emerge. First, the recent revival of systems approaches to resistance is persuasive. Resistance resides in a host of interactions among the roles, functions, systems, and structures of our institutions. Although much of the literature treats resistance as unidirectional and simplistic, generally as a tool asserted by subordinates to dodge (intentionally or unintentionally) the implications of change, a lack of success with the resulting recommendations and recent work call corresponding approaches into question. Resistance, as both a psychological factor in humans and a physical reality of resource-constrained settings, resides not only within one category of people, but within all humans within a system-and is compounded by the inertia in the physical resources that often constrain change efforts.

As such, the numerous recommendations for dealing with motivation and a range of reactions to change appear to be sound practice not only for managers who govern employees, but for all humans within organizations, regardless of their position within the system. Specifically:
Establish participant ownership over the change process.

Become comfortable with negotiation and dialogue that spans various components and teams within the organization
Develop a vision for change that provides a guiding framework about which enthusiam can be generated and sustained.
Work to achieve maximum consensus, realizing that 100% agreement is impossible, but that lack of support for change infuses the organization with doubt and breeds mistrust. Develop strategies that ensure that security and autonomy will be protected-and be proactive about communicating that guarantee Attend to the fears of participants in all areas and at all levels of the organization. Avoid perpetuating unhealthy competition, win-lose scenarios that devalue certain groups' efforts and results, and fear of accurate reporting of progress. Enhance communication throughout the change endeavor and be honest. Remain open to evaluation and adjustment.

In short, as change efforts result in many unpredictable scenarios, the goal should be to establish an environment that builds confidence among organizational participants that mistakes will be accepted, that risks will be expected, and that partnerships in building new systems will be the order of the day. Many people will recognize these prescriptions as fairly standard recommendations for creating collegial workplaces. Perhaps resistance is best captured as the human response to uncertainty-uncertainty in practical matters such as where the paycheck comes from, in power dynamics such as who has authority to withhold resources or impact one's interests, and in personal terms such as whether one will feel competent tomorrow.

SUGGESTED FURTHER READING:

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., & Spector, B. (1990) Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68 (6), 158-166.
Dent, E.B. & Galloway Goldberg, S. (1999). Challenging "resistance to change." The Journal of Behavioral Science, 35 (1), 25-41.
Morrison, K. (1998). Management Theories for Educational Change. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Zachariev, Z. (1999). Recent developments in education in Central and Eastern Europe. Zachariev, Z. (1999). Recent developments in education in Central and Eastern Europe. European Education, 31 (3), 25-39.

References

Adams, J., Hayes, J., & Hopson, B. (1976). Transitions-Understanding and Managing Personal Change.Oxford: Martin Robertson.

Agocs, C. (1997). Institutional resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction and repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16 (9), 917-931.

Aldag, R.J., & Stearns, T.M. (1991) Management(2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South Western Publishing.

Avis, G. (1990). The Soviet higher education reform: Proposals and reactions.Comparative Education, 26 (1), 5-12.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A., & Spector, B. (1990) Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158-166.

Cerych, L. (1999). General report on the symposium "Educational Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe: Processes and Outcomes." European Education, 31(2), 5-38.

Clark, B.R. (2000). Colleagial entrepreneurialism in proactive universities. Change, 32(1), 10-12.

Clark, B.R. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities: Organizational Pathways of Transformation. Oxford: Pergamon-Elsevier.

Dalin, P. (1978). Limits to Educational Change. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Dalin, P., Rolff, H., & Kottkamp, R. (1993). Changing the School Culture. London: Cassell.

Dent, E.B., & Galloway Goldberg, S. (1999). Challenging "resistence to change." The Journal of Behavioral Science, 35 (1), 25-41.

Dubrin, A.J., & Ireland, R.D. (1993) Management and organization (2nd ed.) Cincinnati, OH: South-Western Publishing.

Ginsberg, M.B., Cooper, S., Raghu, R., & Zegarra, H. (1990). National and world-system explanations of educational reform.Comparative Education Review, 34 (4), 474 499.

Gumport, P.J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives.Higher Education, 3967-91.

Hall, D., & Thomas, H. (1999). Higher education reform in a transitional economy: A case study from the School of Economic Studies in Mongolia. Higher Education, 38, 441-460.

Heyneman, S.P. (1992). Revolution in the East: The educational lessons.Journal of Education Finance, 17 (3), 35-46.

Judson, A.S. (1991). Changing Behaviour in Organizations: Minimizing Resistance to Change. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73 (2), 59-67.

Kreitner, R. (1992). Management (5th ed.). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

La Belle, T.J., & Ward, C.R. (1990). Education reform when nations undergo radical political and social transformation. Comparative Education, 26 (1), 95-106.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: I. Concept, method and reality in social sciences; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1, 5-41.

Marrow, A. J. (Ed.) (1972). The Failure of Success. New York: AMACOM.

Molinsky, A.L. (1999). Sanding down the edges: Paradoxical impediments to organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35 (1), 8-24.

Morrison, K. (1998). Management Theories for Educational Change. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.

Ryder, A. (1996). Reform and UK higher education in the enterprise era. Higher Education Quaterly, 50 (1), 54-70.

Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday.

Schein, E.H. (1996). Three cultures of management: The key to organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 38 (1), 9+.

Schermerhom, J.R. Jr. (1989). Management for Productivity (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Sowa, K.Z. (1999). Higher education institutions in the process of social transformation: The case of Poland. European Education, 31 (2), 63-71.

Sporn, B. (1999). Adaptive University Structures: An Analysis of Adaptation to Socioeconomic Environments of US and European Universities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Spreitzer, G.M., & Quinn, R.E. (1996) Empowering middle managers to be transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32 (3), 237-261.

Watson, G. (1966). Resistance to Change. Washington, D.C.: National Training Laboratories.

Wicks, D. (1998). Organizational structures as recursively constructed systems of agency and constraint: Compliance and resistance in the context of structural conditions. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 35 (3), 369-390.

Winston, G.C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13 (1), 13-36.

Zachariev, Z. (1999). Recent developments in education in Central and Eastern Europe.European Education, 31 (3), 25-39.