To better understand the concept of readiness for change, it will be looked at in comparison to another issue coming up in this context: resistance to change. Contrasting these two, it can be argued that resistance to change is the negative explanation of why change programs fail, while change readiness is rather a positive precondition to facilitate change. However, readiness for change is distinct from the idea of resistance to change, even though they may interrelate. For example, enhancement of readiness may avoid active resistance to change (Backer, 1995). This distinction is also elaborated by Armenakis et al. (1993) who explicitly differentiate creating readiness from reducing resistance to change. They argue that for reducing resistance to change to create readiness first so that readiness forestalls the likelihood of resistance to change. Creating readiness is seen involving proactive managers playing the roles of coaches and champions of change, rather than reactively observing the occurrence of resistance and just then taking counter action to deal with it. The change process is understood as a dynamic, proactive and systematic, thus suggesting a different view on change (Choi & Ruona, 2011). Beer (2009) explains resistance to change as a consequence of fear of a loss of power, status, esteem and position and a defensiveness against new alternatives, while change can be motivated by environmental pressures or poor performance. While resistance to change is a retrospective reaction aimed at holding on to the status quo, the motivation for change is a proactive idea. Eden (1986) considering research on the role of expectations, suggests that building positive expectations is essential to building readiness, thus reinforcing the positive basis of the readiness concept. Another understanding of readiness for change is as the opposite of resistance to change (Jacobson, 1957). Elaborating on this, Bernerth (2004) identifies necessity
34 / 225
and appropriateness as the key elements of employee readiness. Going back to the concept of unfreezing by Lewin (1951, 1947), he explains the process of creating readiness as preparing organisational members to unfreeze and to start the course of moving, which is done to alter cognitions of employees in an effort to assist organisational change. Therefore, resistance to change may be understood as a failure to effectively unfreeze the organisation before a change intervention takes place. As a consequence, resistance is a kind of commitment to the current state (Armenakis et al., 1999). Other authors found that resistance is based on the fear of anything new or loss for example of status (Kehoe, 2010; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008; Klein, 1984), therefore resistance might also be understood as holding on to the known rather than risking the unknown.
Resistance to change may be understood as a construct of three dimensions: behavioural / intentional emotional and cognitive (Piderit, 2000). The aspects may be interpreted as following:
• Behavioural: undesirable behaviours as a response to a change effort
(Bartunek, 1993; Coch & French, 1948) or a particular kind of action or inaction (Brower & Abolafia, 1995), which is viewed as an obstacle to change (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008).
• Emotional: resistance is caused by frustration and anxiety of employees and
may result in aggression (Coch & French, 1948) and arises from defensive routines (Argyris & Schon, 1974).
• Cognitive: suggestions that resistance is caused by negative thoughts or
reluctance (Watson, 1982) and can be overcome cognitively (Bartlem & Locke, 1981).
Understanding a form of resistance to change as a non-compliance to explicit behavioural requirements (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), readiness for change may be interpreted as the willingness to comply with certain behaviours or behavioural changes needed for change implementation. This idea is in line with the understanding of readiness for change composed of change commitment and change efficacy to implement organisational change (Weiner, 2009). However, the
35 / 225
differentiation between active resistance to change and a more passive behaviour of non-support for change is blurred. Also there are several reasons for resistance to change, mainly a general resistance to a new, unknown state and these may result in active resistance or passive non-support depending on the perceived impact of this reasons.
A psychologically based explanation and resulting ideas to deal with resistance are described in the analysis of Kegan and Lahey (2001). The authors suggest that besides common or obvious reasons for resistance to change like the fear of a shift in power or fear of learning new things, there is also a kind of personal immunity to change that exists, which they call competing commitment. This competing commitment neither indicates opposition, nor does it result from idleness. It is rather a deeply rooted barrier, which people are not aware of, described as a subconscious, hidden goal that conflicts with peoples stated goals. This phenomenon may be another reason for employees resisting change. The authors describe a process to overcome these subconscious barriers to change, after which people are more open to changing their behaviour. This process is complex, a considerable amount of time is needed and it is challenging, painful, energy-sapping or even embarrassing for the employee. These issues point to the limited practicability of this model for an extensive change process. Kehoe (2010) and Kotter (2010) respectively advise responsible managers to get people on board for new ideas or to deal with troublemakers. One important aspect Kotter (2010) mentions is to listen to agitators, treat them with respect, to not let them get personal and to be prepared for the common strategies to attack ideas for change. Besides the overall concept, Kotter recommends that you push good ideas forward, which are not limited to organisational change, as these may be important to seriously deal with resistors, and not only ignore them or order them to cope. Budner (1962 p. 29) analysed how managers cope with change, focussing on the two dispositional traits of positive self-concept (composed of positive affectivity, self-esteem and self-efficacy) and risk tolerance (composed of openness to experience, low risk aversion and tolerance for ambiguity). It was found that the two factors of tolerance for ambiguity (”the tendency to perceive (i. e., interpret)
36 / 225
ambiguous situations as sources of threat”) and positive affectivity (associated with well-being, confidence energy, affiliation, a positive worldview and self-confidence) had the strongest relation to successful coping with change. In regards to how managers cope with change, Judge et al. (1999) recommended to enhance the success of change efforts by assessing and selecting managers responsible for change based on these two variables. This advice may not be very practicable, because when change is needed, there might be neither time nor financial resources to hire new personnel for that, but from the management already available those considered with high tolerance for ambiguity and positive affectivity may be put in charge as change agents. When selecting change agents, it should be acknowledged that responsible first-line supervisors may resist employee involvement, as research by Klein (1984) found. Reasons for resistance may be found in concerns regarding job security (or a loss of power and control), job definition / expectations and additional workload for implementation. In conclusion, Klein argues that resistance is understandable, since first-line supervisors are squeezed in the middle between employees and management. The aspect of underlying structures of relationships within organisational systems and especially for example the challenges and tasks of certain management positions are also dealt with in detail by Oshry (2010b, 2010a, 2007, 1966).
After the concept of readiness was contrasted with that of resistance to change and a partial overlap in the understanding of both was identified, understanding is complemented by one encompassing model of change readiness.