Safari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Help zoom G Q 9 Wed Mar 27 6:29 PM LSU Wel | @ COL | @ Mo | @ Col | E Res | Mai .. . I V eds-p-ebscohost-com.libezp.lib.Isu.edu C G coursehero.com/tutors/homework-help/ Home - Welcome to Charter y! Yahoo! (2) Q Suggested Sites S Free Hotmail / Web Slice Gallery BingTM Traffic / MSN LSU Welcome to LSU, a top resea... Module 2 Resources: Resista... LSU Resistance to change: The re... Start Page Get homework help = O LSU Resistance to change: The rest of the story Ask a question Connect with Tutor works on- Libraries This content may contain URLs/links that would redirect you to a non-EBSCO site. EBSCO does an expert your question X not endorse the accuracy or accessibility of these sites, nor of the content therein. Detailed Record Critical Path Consultants 1. Ask your question 7 38 questions available PDF Full Text ANGELO D'AMELIO The Vanto Group Source: ACADEMY OF Prevailing views of resistance to change tell a one-sided story that favors change MANAGEMENT REVIEW agents by proposing that resistance is an irrational and dysfunctional reaction lo- cated "over there" in change recipients. We tell the rest of the story by proposing that Date: April 1, 2008 change agents contribute to the occurrence of resistance through their own actions and inactions and that resistance can be a resource for change. We conclude by proposing how resistance might be restructured. Type your question or attach a picture here. Inside this work It is time to expand our understanding of re- This "change agent-centric" view presumes Full Text Contents sistance to change, including its sources and its that resistance is an accurate report by unbi- potential contribution to effective change man- ased observers (change agents) of an objective 1 -5 6 - 10 11 - 15 > > agement. As others have noted (Dent & Gold- reality (resistance by change recipients). Upload images berg, 1999a; King & Anderson, 1995; Meston & Change agents are not portrayed as partici- King, 1996), the predominant perspective on re- pants who enact their environments (Weick Resistance to 362 sistance is decidedly one sided, in favor of 1979) or construct their realities (Berger & Luck- change... change agents and their sponsors. Studies of mann, 1966) but, rather, as people who deal with change appear to take the perspective, or bias, and address the objectively real resistance of Winning legally: The... 378 of those seeking to bring about change, in which change recipients. There is no consideration Next it is presumed change agents are doing the right given to the possibility that resistance is an Multicommunicating: ... 391 and proper things while change recipients interpretation assigned by change agents to the throw up unreasonable obstacles or barriers in- behaviors and communications of change recip "Implicit" and "expl... 404 tent on "doing in" or "screwing up" the change ients, or that these interpretations are either (Dent & Goldberg, 1999a; Klein, 1976). Accord- self-serving or self-fulfilling. ingly, change agents are portrayed as undeserv Cognitions, emotions... 425 Nor, for that matter, does the change agent- ing victims of the irrational and dysfunctional centric view consider the possibility that change responses of change recipients. agents contribute to the occurrence of what they call "resistant behaviors and communications" We thank Abhishek Haldar and the anonymous AMR re- through their own actions and inactions, owing viewers for their invaluable assistance in the development to their own ignorance, incompetence, or mis- 2. Enter the course of this manuscript. management (e.g., Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, For the purpose of exposition, we use the term change 1990; Kanter et al., 1992; Schaffer & Thompson, agent to refer to those who are responsible for identifying 1992; Spreitzer & Quinn, 1996). Rather, resistance the need for change, creating a vision and specifying a desired outcome, and then making it happen. They are the is portrayed as an unwarranted and detrimental people responsible for the formulation and implementati response residing completely "over there, in of the change and include what Kanter, Stein, and Jick (1992) them" (the change recipients) and arising spon- call "change strategists and implementers." Chan taneously as a reaction to change, independent therefore, include those engaged in the actual conduct of the change, as well as those who call for and sponsor it. We use of the interactions and relationships between the term change recipients to rep the change agents and recipients (Dent & Gold- are responsible for implem for implementing, adopting, or adapting to berg, 1999a; Ford, Ford, & Mcnamara, 2002; King the change(s) (Kanter et al., 1992). & Anderson, 1995). 362 Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listser wise transmitted without the copyright holder's express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only. MAR 27 stv Q N THI ZA zoom fiSafari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Help zoom G Q 9 Wed Mar 27 6:30 PM LSU Wel | @ COL | @ Mo | @ Col | E Res | 0 Mai .. . I V eds-p-ebscohost-com.libezp.lib.Isu.edu C G coursehero.com/tutors/homework-help/ Home - Welcome to Charter y! Yahoo! (2) Q Suggested Sites S Free Hotmail / Web Slice Gallery BingTM Traffic / MSN LSU Welcome to LSU, a top resea... Module 2 Resources: Resista... LSU Resistance to change: The re... Start Page Get homework help = O LSU Resistance to change: The rest of the story Ask a question Connect with Tutor works on- Libraries This content may contain URLs/links that would redirect you to a non-EBSCO site. EBSCO does an expert your question X not endorse the accuracy or accessibility of these sites, nor of the content therein. Detailed Record Resistance to organization change is never questioned its continued usefulness (Dent & 1. Ask your question 7 38 questions available PDF Full Text portrayed as the product of rationally coherent Goldberg, 1999a; King & Anderson, 1995), pro- strategies and objectives (Jermier, Knights, & posed conceptual reformulations (e.g., Piderit, Nord, 1994), even though resistance to persua 2000), or challenged its theoretical underpin- Source: ACADEMY OF sion has been found to be the product of nings (Czarniawska & Sevon, 1996; Latour, 1986). B I U X 2 X? ! = = Q B V fx [ MANAGEMENT REVIEW thoughtful consideration (e.g., Knowles & Linn, Although each has opened new avenues for ex 2004b; Wegener, Petty, Smoak, & Fabrigar, 2004). amination, we see a consistent failure of re Date: April 1, 2008 Nor is resistance to change viewed as a poten- searchers to explicitly consider the contribution tial contributor to or resource for effective of change agents to resistance and the implica- Inside this work change, despite the fact that authentic dissent tions of that contribution for the role of resis- has been shown to be functional in other areas tance in change. The intent of this article is to of management (Nemeth, Brown, & Rogers, 2001; Get homework help begin addressing this failure. Full Text Contents Nemeth, Connell, Rogers, & Brown, 2001; Schulz- LSU Hardt, Jochims, & Frey, 2002). As a result, we have a one-sided view of resistance that is RESISTANCE AS CHANGE AGENT 1. Ask your question # 30 questions available 1 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 >> BOUTOR ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW treated as received truth, even though this view SENSEMAKING is both theoretically and practically limited, Current approaches to change tend to treat Resistance to 362 overly simplistic, and perhaps even misguided change agents like the umpire who asserts, " Upload images change... Dent & Goldberg, 1999b; Jermier et al., 19 call them [balls and strikes] as they are" (Weick, King & Anderson, 1995). 1979)-that is, assuming they are mirroring a Winning legally: The... 378 Given these limitations, we think it is time to reality in which resistance is a report on object expand the resistance story in three ways: first, tive phenomena that exist independent of them. Multicommunicating: ... 391 by considering resistance as a self-serving and This assumption ignores that change presents potentially self-fulfilling label, given by change both agents and recipients with potential prob- "Implicit" and "expl... 404 agents attempting to make sense of change re- lems that are an occasion and trigger for sense- cipients' reactions to change initiatives, rather making (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991; Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994; Weick, 1995). Cognitions, emotions... 425 than a literal description of an objective reality; second, by examining the ways in which change Problems are not givens; they are constructed agents contribute to the occurrence of the very from novel, discrepant, or problematic situa- reactions they label as resistance through their tions that are puzzling, troubling, or uncertain to own actions and inactions, such as the breach of participants (Weick, 1995). Change is a situation agreements and failure to restore trust (Cobb, that interrupts normal patterns of organization Upload images Wooten, & Folger, 1995; Folger & Skarlicki, 1999; and calls for participants to enact new patterns, Morrison & Robinson, 1997; Tomlinson, Dineen, involving an interplay of deliberate and emer- & Lewicki, 2004), which implies that resistance is gent processes that can be highly ambiguous neither a sudden nor a direct response to a par- (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). In these circum ticular instance of change but, rather, a function stances both change agents and change recipi of the quality of the relationship between agents ents engage in sensemaking: change agents try Next and recipients in which change agents are and to determine "How will this get accomplished?' have been active participants and contributors; and change recipients try to determine "What and, third, by considering that there are circum- will happen to me?" (Gioia et al., 1994). stances under which what agents call resis- Sensemaking is an active process that in- tance can be a positive contribution to change volves the interaction of information seeking, (e.g., Knowles & Linn, 2004c). By assuming that meaning ascription, and associated responses resistance is necessarily bad, change agents (Thomas, Clark, & Gioia, 1993). It includes ex- have missed its potential contributions of in- tracting particular behaviors and communica- creasing the likelihood of successful implemen tions out of streams of ongoing events (i.e., tation, helping build awareness and momentum bracketing), interpreting them to give them MAR 27 stv 4 zoom OSafari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Help zoom G Q 9 Wed Mar 27 6:30 PM LSU Wel | @ COL | @ Mo | @ Col | E Res | 0 Mai .. . eds-p-ebscohost-com.libezp.lib.Isu.edu C G coursehero.com/tutors/homework-help/ Home - Welcome to Charter y! Yahoo! (2) Q Suggested Sites S Free Hotmail / Web Slice Gallery BingTM Traffic / MSN LSU Welcome to LSU, a top resea... Module 2 Resources: Resista... LSU Resistance to change: The re... Start Page Get homework help O LSU Resistance to change: The rest of the story Ask a question Connect with Tutor works on- Libraries This content may contain URLs/links that would redirect you to a non-EBSCO site. EBSCO does an expert your question X not endorse the accuracy or accessibility of these sites, nor of the content therein. Detailed Record 364 Academy of Management Review April PDF Full Text reality (see also Goss, 1996, and Watzlawick, idating their expectations, and sustaining the 1990). Change agents take actions consistent received truth that people resist change. Source: ACADEMY OF with the net presentation, reifying and objecti- fying it as if it exists independent of them and as MANAGEMENT REVIEW if they had nothing to do with its creation A Self-Serving Account Berger & Luckmann, 1966). Sensemaking, by in- Sensemaking occurs in conversations that in- * Safari Fad Edt View History Bookmarks Widow 20om 8 1 = 9 9 2 Date: April 1, 2008 cluding authoring and creation as well as dis- volve giving accounts or self-justifying explana covery, implies a higher level of change agent tions of events and activities. Scott and Lyman + + a t coursehere com/tutorshomework.hey " #x involvement than simply reporting or interpre- (1968) defined an account as a linguistic device Get homework help Inside this work tation (Gioia et al., 1994; Weick, 1995). employed when action is subject to evaluation, LSU Full Text Contents particularly when there is a gap between action 1. Ask your question # 38 questions available Expectation Effects and expectation or between promise and perfor mance. A form of defensive speaking (Schutz & ADD ACADEMY OF BIXXX :BAR 1 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 >> Expectations, such as those found in self- Baumeister, 1999), an account's purpose is to ex- fulfilling prophecies and the Pygmalion effect, plain unexpected or untoward behaviors or out Resistance to 362 can have a significant impact on change agent comes in a way that will help the speaker main- sensemaking, particularly bracketing (Eden, tain a favorable relationship with the audience change... 1984, 1988; Madon, Jussim, & Eccles, 1997; hearing the account. If change agents are ex- Watzlawick, 1984). A self-fulfilling prophecy be- pected to mobilize action and fail to do so, an Winning legally: The... 378 gins with a person's belief, false at the time, that account for the failure is warranted (Eccles, Noh- a certain event will happen in the future. The ria, & Berley, 1992). Multicommunicating: ... 391 person holding the belief then behaves as if the But not just any account will suffice. Whether event is an inevitable occurrence, making sense an audience accepts an account depends on the "Implicit" and "expl... 404 of the actions and communications of others in shared background expectancies and under such a way as to confirm the prophecy. In so standings of the interactants. Accounts that ap Cognitions, emotions... 425 doing, he or she enacts a world that appears as peal to what "everyone knows" have a higher an insightful awareness of reality, rather than a likelihood of being accepted (Scott & Lyman, product of his or her own authorship (Weick, 1968). As a received truth, resistance meets this 1979). Accordingly, research shows that expecta- standard, making it a readily acceptable ac- tions regarding the ability and potential of oth- count. This means that change agents' accounts Upload images ers affect the assessments of their performance of unexpected problems in a change process can and subsequent treatment by authority fig- safely attribute those problems to resistance a ures-for example, teachers and leaders (Berger a way to divert attention from other factors, in & Luckmann, 1966; Eden, 1988; Eden & Shani, cluding their own failings (Meston & King, 1996) 1982). Change agents are thereby encouraged to en- The work on self-fulfilling prophecies and the gage in sensemaking that entails scapegoating Next Pygmalion effect suggests that if change agents and sloughing off responsibility by blaming dif- go into a change expecting resistance, they are ficulties on resistance. likely to find it (Kanter et al., 1992). As Winslow The literature on self-serving attributions and points out: bias is replete with examples of decision mak- ers at all levels giving accounts that shift blame Someone holding the hypothesis of, or actually and make them look good (e.g., Bettman & Weitz, believing in, resistance to change, will plan on resistance, will plot ways to minimize it, will be 1983; Ford, 1985; Kelley, 1973; Salancik & Meindl, tempted to disguise or hide the change, will keep 1984). Unless we are willing to assume that it a secret, in short take any and all actions to change agents are immune to these same attri- overcome this assumed resistance, which then, surprise, surprise, leads to the a butional tendencies, it is reasonable to expect them to give accounts in which they take credit MAR 27 stv 4 zoom OSafari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Help zoom G Q Wed Mar 27 6:31 PM LSU Wel | @ COL | @ Mo | @ Col | E Res | Mai .. . I V eds-p-ebscohost-com.libezp.lib.Isu.edu C G coursehero.com/tutors/homework-help/ Home - Welcome to Charter y! Yahoo! (2) Q Suggested Sites S Free Hotmail / Web Slice Gallery BingTM Traffic / MSN LSU Welcome to LSU, a top resea... Module 2 Resources: Resista... LSU Resistance to change: The re... Start Page Get homework help O LSU Resistance to change: The rest of the story Ask a question Connect with Tutor works on- Libraries This content may contain URLs/links that would redirect you to a non-EBSCO site. EBSCO does an expert your question X not endorse the accuracy or accessibility of these sites, nor of the content therein. Detailed Record Ask your question 38 questions available PDF Full Text 2008 Ford, Ford, and D'Amelio 365 Source: ACADEMY OF tance to change" as the source of these prob- or the ways in which people of greater authority MANAGEMENT REVIEW lems is both individually and collectively self- interact with those of lesser authority (Shapiro & serving for change agents, because it sustains Kirkman, 1999). Date: April 1, 2008 standardized terminology and beliefs within the Research on organizational justice has shown community of change agents, validates the fun- that when people see themselves as being or damental tenet that people resist change, and having been treated fairly, they develop atti- Inside this work absolves or mitigates agent responsibility for tudes and behaviors associated with successful the unexpected negative aspects of change. By change (Cobb et al., 1995). However, when peo Full Text Contents locating resistance "over there, in them" (i.e., ple experience an injustice or betrayal, they re- change recipients), rather than treat g it as the port resentment, a sense of being done to, and a zoom 8 : = Q 2 wad Mur 27 6:30PM interactive systemic phenomenon envisioned by desire for retribution (Folger & Skarlicki, 1999), ". .. m . 1 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 >> Lewin (1952), change agents shift responsibility which can result in such negative behaviors as for resistance from things under their control stealing, lower productivity, lower work quality, mework help Resistance to 362 (i.e., systemic factors) to the characteristics and and less cooperation (Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999) LSU change... attributes of recipients (Caruth, Middlebrook, & along with the loss of trust of, obligation toward, Rachel, 1985; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; O'Toole, and satisfaction with their employer (Robinson, Winning legally: The... 378 1995). In this way the generic explanation of 1996; Robinson & Morrison, 1995; Robinson & resistance serves to conceal the specific behav- Rousseau, 1994). In extreme cases, people may Multicommunicating: ... 391 iors and communications of both agents and seek revenge or retaliation and engage in sab- recipients that lie behind it. For these reasons, otage, theft, or other aggressive or violent be- we should not be surprised that recommended havior (Benisom, 1994; Robinson & Bennett, 1997; "Implicit" and "expl... 404 strategies for dealing with resistance focus on Tripp & Bies, 1997), believing that such actions doing things to or for change recipients, while are justifiable ways to "get even" for perceived Cognitions, emotions... 425 saying little or nothing about the actions of mistreatment and to balance a perceived injus- change agents (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). tice. Many of the responses to injustice have also CHANGE AGENT CONTRIBUTIONS TO been labeled as forms of resistance (Caruth et RESISTANCE il., 1985; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; O'Toole 1995), suggesting that resistance may be the re The contribution of change agents to resis- sult of perceived injustice and broken agree- tance goes beyond the labeling that results from ments. Our own speculation is that this result their own sensemaking to breaking agreements may be particularly evident in cases of transfor and violating trust, misrepresentation and other mational change, where there is a greater like Upload images communication breakdowns, and their own re- lihood that existing agreements will be broken sistance to change. and replaced with fundamentally different ones (Rousseau, 1996), eroding recipient trust and Broken Agreements and the Violation of Trust agent credibility. Nevertheless, victims of bro- ken agreements are willing to reconcile and re- Change agents contribute to recipient reac- pair a relationship if the offender offers a sin tions by breaking agreements both before and cere, formal, and timely apology that clearly during change and by failing to restore the sub- admits personal culpability (Tomlinson et al., sequent loss of trust (Andersson, 1996; Cobb et 2004). al., 1995; Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). This line of research suggests that change Agreements, including psychological and im- agents who repair damaged relationships and MAR 27 stv zoomSafari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Help zoom G Q Wed Mar 27 6:31 PM LSU Wel | @ Col | @ Mo | @ Col | E Res | Mai .. . I V eds-p-ebscohost-com.libezp.lib.Isu.edu C G coursehero.com/tutors/homework-help/ Home - Welcome to Charter y! Yahoo! (2) Q Suggested Sites S Free Hotmail / Web Slice Gallery BingTM Traffic / MSN LSU Welcome to LSU, a top resea... Module 2 Resources: Resista... LSU Resistance to change: The re... Start Page Get homework help O LSU Resistance to change: The rest of the story Ask a question Connect with Tutor works on- Libraries This content may contain URLs/links that would redirect you to a non-EBSCO site. EBSCO does an expert your question EX not endorse the accuracy or accessibility of these sites, nor of the content therein. Detailed Record 366 Academy of Management Review April PDF Full Text not only in later phases of current changes but ments in order to identify strengths and weak- in subsequent changes as well (Duck, 2001; nesses (Knowles & Linn, 2004b). As a result, Source: ACADEMY OF Knowles & Linn, 2004b). In this respect, research strong, well-developed supporting justifications MANAGEMENT REVIEW shows that failing to repair damaged relat tend to be accepted and weak ones rejected. By ships and restore trust leads to other responses dismissing this scrutiny as resistance, change Date: April 1, 2008 that will be labeled resistance: cynicism, a ten- agents not only miss the opportunity to provide dency to engage in disparaging and critical be- compelling justifications that help recipients haviors toward both change and change agents, make the cognitive reassessments required to Inside this work and lower work motivation and commitment support change but also increase the risk of (Andersson, 1996; Dean, Brandes, & Dharwadkar, inoculation recipients against future change Full Text Contents 1998; Reichers et al., 1997). (Knowles & Linn, 2004b). According to McGuire's theory of inoculation, outo 1 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 >> Communication Breakdowns change recipients' success in resisting influence Get homework help is determined by their ability to refute argu- Change agents can also contribute to the oc- ments that challenge their prevailing beliefs Resistance to 362 currence of resistance through communication (McGuire, 1964; McGuire & Papageorgis, 1961). Ful Detained Record change... breakdowns, such as failing to legitimize Developing counterarguments builds a stronger change, misrepresenting its chances of success, defense of and rationale for their current per- Winning legally: The... 378 and failing to call people to action. Failure to legitimize change. Traditional per- spectives, thereby serving as a form of inocula- tion against future challenges (Tormala & Petty Multicommunicating: ... 391 spectives on diffusion contend that adoption is driven by the merits of the innovation and/or 2004). Inoculation theory suggests that change "Implicit" and "expl... 404 characteristics of adopters, rather than the dis- agents who do not develop and provide compel- cursive practices of change agents (Green, 2004). ling justifications that overcome the potential or in this respect, diffusion is treated as an object- prevailing counterarguments, or who fail to Cognitions, emotions... 425 like phenomenon that moves in the same way demonstrate the validity of those justifications, physical objects move and is slowed by contact end up inoculationg recipients and increasing with recipients (Latour, 1986). But innovations their immunity to change. Inoculation theory and changes are not objects; they are conversa- has been used successfully in increasing col- tions, discourses, and texts (Barrett, Thomas, & lege student resistance to credit card advertise- Hocevar, 1995; Boje, 1995; Czarniawska & Sevon, ments (Compton & Pfau, 2004), preventing the 1996; Fairclough, 1992; Ford, 1999), the merits of erosion of public attitudes toward an organiza- which are seldom self-evident. Change agents, tion following a crisis (Wan & Pfau, 2004), and therefore, must provide discursive justifications increasing the resistance of supporters of polit- that establish the appropriateness and ratio- ical candidates to attack messages from oppos- Upload images nality of change adoption, create readiness for ing candidates (Pfau & Burgoon, 1988). change, and increase not only the likelihood of Finally, although Piderit (2000) has suggested recipient acceptance and participation in the that ambivalence may be helpful during change but also the speed and extent of that change, Larson and Tompkins (2005) have found acceptance (Amenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, that change agents undermine the power of 1993; Green, 2004; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). their justifications for and the legitimacy of a Next Recipient acceptance of and participation in change by being ambivalent. Using the rhetoric the initial stages of a change has been shown to of the new while engaging in the practices of the depend on recipients' assessment of its instru- old, or advocating the value of the new while mentality-that is, the likelihood the change praising the success of the old, sends an incon will lead to personal and organizational bene- sistent message to change recipients, making it MAR 27 stv zoomSafari File Edit View History Bookmarks Window Help zoom G Q 9 Wed Mar 27 6:31 PM LSU Wel | @ Col | @ Mo | @ Col | E Res | Mai * X .. . I V eds-p-ebscohost-com.libezp.lib.Isu.edu C G coursehero.com/tutors/homework-help/ Home - Welcome to Charter y! Yahoo! (2) Q Suggested Sites S Free Hotmail / Web Slice Gallery BingTM Traffic / MSN LSU Welcome to LSU, a top resea... Module 2 Resources: Resista... LSU Resistance to change: The re... Start Page Get homework help = O LSU Resistance to change: The rest of the story Ask a question Connect with Tutor works on Libraries This content may contain URLs/links that would redirect you to a non-EBSCO site. EBSCO does an expert your question X not endorse the accuracy or accessibility of these sites, nor of the content therein. Detailed Record tions can result in perceptions of misrepresen- ation, injustice, and violations of trust (Folger & Resisting Resistance PDF Full Text Skarlicki, 1999; Tomlinson et al., 2004) that un- dermine agent credibility and add to recipient By assuming that only change recipients re- anticipation of future inconsistencies (Folger & sist change, proponents of traditional ap- Source: ACADEMY OF Skarlicki, 1999). proaches ignore the possibility that change MANAGEMENT REVIEW As a practical matter, change agents are en- agents may be resistant to the ideas, proposals couraged to communicate frequently and enthu- and counteroffers submitted by change recipi Date: April 1, 2008 siastically about change (Lewis, Schmisseur, ents. Research on procedural and interactional Stephens, & Weir, 2006). Yet, in doing so, they justice (Folger et al., 1999; Whitener, Brodt, Kors- run the risk of being seen as misrepresenting gaard, & Werner, 1998) indicates that if change Inside this work the change. Agents can reduce the chances of agents fail to treat the communications of such accusations by being as truthful, realistic, change recipients as genuine and legitimate, or Full Text Contents and accurate in their depiction of the change as as extensions and translations of the change, possible, including revealing what they do not they may be seen as resistant (e.g., "defensive," outo 1 - 5 6 -10 11 - 15 >> know. Schweigger and DeNisi (1991), for exam- "unreceptive," or "their mind is made up") by Get homework help Resistance to 362 Ful Detailed Record change... Winning legally: The... 378 6 -36 19 -15 9 Multicommunicating: ... 391 "Implicit" and "expl... 404 368 Academy of Management Review April Cognitions, emotions... 425 change recipients. Change agent defensiveness challenge for change agents is getting new con- may also be more likely when recipient reac- versations heard-and ultimately spoken-in tions indicate that more effort will be required to enough places, often enough, and long enough accomplish the change than was originally that they catch on and take root (Barrett et al. planned or that there will be undesirable bud- 1995). This is where resistance can be of value. get or other performance impacts, or when the Resistance helps keep conversations in exis- change agent has career consequences associ- tence, as evidenced by the following example wwork-hell ated with the success of the change (King & from a pharmaceutical company introducing a Anderson, 1995). The cost of this defensiveness new product: at homework help is the persistence of resistance and its escala- your question tion in a vicious cycle, in which resistance be- Using [the] data was very strong, something like 'shock therapy," but it gave us the opportunity to gets resistance (Powell & Posner, 1978). get our foot in the door. We wanted as many One way in which agents resist resistance is people as possible talking about the issue; we to not talk about it in the mistaken belief that to wanted to create a debate. In the beginning, we acknowledge something is to give it power and weren't concerned whether people were talking credence. However, Tomala and Petty (2004) in a positive or even a negative way, because point out that not talking about or acknowledg- g attention to our issue either way, it was bringing afternoon (Reputation Management, 1999: 59). ng resistance may actually exacerbate it. Build- ing on the approach-avoidance theory of per- Although talking in a negative way-for exam- suasion, they contend that a persuasive ple, complaining and criticizing-has been la- message raises both accenting consideration beled as resistance (Caruth et al., 1985), it can MAR 27 stv 4 zoom