Two Paradigms about Resistance to Change Cline Bareil, MPs, PhD University of Montreal, Canada Cline Bareil, Ph.D. (University of Montreal, Canada), is an Associate Professor of OD and change management at HEC Montral. Her current research interest is on change recipients' responses to change. Cline contributed to the development of a new OD option in the Master of Science in Administration Program and of an intensive seminar for OD professionals at Executive Education. She also worked for ten years in three major private/public organizations. Abstract The concept of \"resistance to change\" is undergoing a shift, even a transformation. In this article, resistance is reconsidered under two apparently divergent paradigms: from \"the enemy of change\" (traditional paradigm) to \"a resource\" (modern paradigm). OD change practitioners are exposed to sequencing those two paradigms in interpreting and dealing with resistance to change. A model using the underestimated construct of \"preoccupation\" is proposed as a means to cope effectively with resistance to change. Keywords: resistance to change, paradigm, preoccupation, concern ________________________ Author Contact Information: Cline Bareil, MPs, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Management HEC Montral 3000, chemin de la Cte-Sainte-Catherine Montral, (Qubec), Canada, H3T 2A7 Phone : (514) 340-5686 Fax : (514) 340-5635 Celine.Bareil@hec.ca For more than sixty years (Coch & French, 1948; Lewin, 1952), human resistance to change has been a recurring theme and constant source of interest for practitioners and scholars alike. While some suggest overcoming, minimizing, or eliminating resistance to change (Coch & French, 1948; Judson, 1991; Lawrence, 1969; Ortiz, 2012; Palmer, 2003; Tobin, 1999), others propose decoding (Ford & Ford, 2009), diagnosing (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008), or utilizing (Waddell & Bareil 59 Sohal, 1998) resistance to change. Instead of being on 650 participants from 62 countries, \"resistance interpreted as a threat, and the enemy of change, to change from employees\" would be the third resistance to change can also be considered as a resource (Ford & Ford, 2009), and even a type of commitment (Burke, 2011) on the part of change recipients. It is becoming increasingly clear that the concept of resistance to change is undergoing a greatest obstacle to change management success, while \"middle-management resistance\" would be the fourth, (the first and second greatest obstacles being \"ineffective change management sponsorship from senior leaders\" and \"insufficient change shift, even a transformation. As Organization Development (OD) management resourcing\"). These studies as well as many observations of numerous change projects practitioners constantly deal with planned change (implementing programs or organizational changes), this article aims to present an enlightening and more comprehensive interpretation of the abundant descriptive, prescriptive, and critical literature on resistance to change. This will drive demonstrate the impact of resistance to change, especially when one considers that the failure rate of change implementation remains quite high. In fact, according to McKinsey's study (Meaney & Pung, 2008), more than two thirds of the 3,199 corporate leaders from several countries have admitted that two targeted avenues for interpreting and dealing their major change initiatives undertaken over the with resistance as OD professionals, based on two paradigms (traditional and modern) that are put last few years have not significantly improved the performance of their organizations. forward. Finally, a model and its application will be Second, resistance to change is a very discussed. popular theme. Indeed, there is no lack of interest in the subject, as there exists a rich literature. The Urgent Need for an Enlightening Entire books are being published on resistance to Interpretation of Resistance change (Dello & Fasenfest, 2010; Evans, 1996; What justifies the need for an enlightening Harvard Business School Press, 2005; Harvey & interpretation of resistance to change at this time? Broyles, 2010; Hultman, 1979, 1998; Judson, 1991; Three main elements lend legitimacy to our attempt Lundblad, 2001; Maurer, 1996; Ortiz, 2012; Palmer, to provide such an interpretation: the importance of 2003; Raelin, 2008; Tobin, 1999). Scientific writings the topic, its popularity, and the advent of critical on resistance to change are mostly normative, to the texts. detriment of empirical research. Herscovitch (2003) First, resistance to change is an important and Orth (2002) lamented the limited number of phenomenon relating to change management. It empirical studies on resistance to change. Armenakis is often associated with one of the main obstacles and Bedeian (1999) published their first review to implementing organizational change (Bovey & of theory and research about resistance to change Hede, 2001; Vales, 2007). In Deloitte and Touche's in the 1990s. Erwin and Garman (2010, p. 41) study (as cited in Erwin & Garman, 2010), resistance \"evaluated published research papers, appearing in to change is identified as the number one reason peer-reviewed journals since 1998\