Resistance to Change: Views, Comparisons, and Management Strategies

This essay delves into the multifaceted concept of resistance to change within organizational settings. It examines three distinct views: the mechanistic view, which perceives resistance as an inherent element of change processes; the social view, which regards resistance as an adverse occurrence stemming from individual or organizational characteristics; and the conversational view, which emphasizes the role of ongoing dialogues in shaping responses to change. The essay contrasts and compares these perspectives, highlighting their differing interpretations of resistance. Furthermore, it provides practical strategies for managers to effectively address and manage resistance, including identifying underlying causes, engaging appropriate leadership, and anticipating potential objections. The essay underscores the importance of understanding resistance as a natural aspect of change, and leveraging this understanding to foster smoother transitions and achieve organizational goals. Finally, it emphasizes that effective change management minimizes negative impacts, enhances overall program effectiveness, and promotes growth.

Running head: RESISTANCE TO CHANGE 1
Resistance to Change
Institution
Student
Course
Date

2
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Resistance to Change
Change is an inevitable process that many people tend to resist due to its impact on their personal
status quo (Kray, et al., 2017). However, change and innovation are required in order to adapt
and survive. On the other hand, resistance is an occurrence which impacts on change by
procrastinating or obstructing its commencement, hampering its enactment and surging its costs.
Resistance to change tends to be viewed in a negative manner (Courpasson & Steven P Vallas,
2016), most likely because of misunderstanding about its need and fear of the unknown. People
also have a general attitude of counteracting any changes to maintain their status quo. Research
done has revealed three different views to managing resistance to change which are; the
Mechanistic view, the Social view and the Conversational view. Below is an expansion on these
three views, a summary on their comparison and contrast and an explanation on how managers
can resist change. Change is an important aspect in an organization that promotes growth and
should be expected and implemented with minimum hassle (Hobfoll & Freedy, 2017).
The Mechanistic view of resistance relates resistance to mechanics where just like in the latter,
resistance is an inherent and unavoidable phenomenon where motion and movement are involved
(Nugent, 2018). There is no movement that exists without resistance and it is this resistance that
slows down movement, reducing velocity and momentum. Similarly, in organizations, people
regularly behave in ways that slow or delay every day proceedings. These behaviors include the
usual acts of being late for meetings, damaging equipment, misplacing items and not following
directions. It is this resistance that lowers efficiency causing poor performance as well as
delaying the accomplishment of the organization’s goals (Woods, 2018).

3
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
The Social view of resistance portrays it as an extraordinary and disadvantageous occurrence that
is a characteristic of individuals and organizations (Bristow, Sarah Robinson, & Olivier Ratle,
2017). The social challenge of retorting efficiently to resistant behaviors and communications
constitute some of this shift to viewing resistance as always problematical. This view explains
resistance as being odd, that is, not an ordinary phenomenon but something that transpires solely
in response to change.
The Conversational view of resistance emphasizes that the day to day conversations that people
take part in create the setting wherein people act and the content and processes through which
things get done. Changes that occur in organizations exist in meta-conversations set up in and by
systems of recursive conversations which develop over different times in the day-to-day
interactions.
Contrast of the views
While the Mechanistic view brings out resistance as a product of interactions between two or
more entities, the Social view treats it as a personal property located “over there, in them/it.” The
former view explains that resistance relies on the features and features of two or more elements
and that the magnitude of resistance is a function of these elements. Hence, in an organization,
change takes two or more sides, positions or ideas to occur. It is therefore a result of interfaces
between change agents and change recipients. On the other hand, Social view of resistance drifts
away from the interactive nature described above to a more one-sided methodology which
depicts resistance as an extraordinary and disadvantageous occurrence which is a product or an
attribute of individuals and organizations instead of interactions.

4
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
The Social view of resistance presents resistance as something extraordinary unlike the
Mechanistic view that treats it as a natural and everyday phenomenon. The latter explains that
resistances in organizations are regular occurrences that people are well familiar with and have
developed accommodating responses. On the contrary, according to the social view, resistance is
not an everyday occurrence, but something exceptional that happens only in response to change
(Jimmieson, Nerina L.; Alannah E. Rafferty, 2016).
Unlike the social view that describes resistance as a personal property based on a psychological
and subjective view of subjects independently or in groups ( free from interactions with others),
the conversational view of resistance explains it to exist in meta-conversations. According to the
latter, all changes that occur within organizations are attributed by systems of recursive and
chronological discussions which develop over different times in the day-to-day activities. Here,
change is perceived as a polyphonic occurrence within which discussions are presented, upheld
and obliterated. Organizational members do not all communicate in a similar language, nor do
they use similar words everywhere to mean the same thing and as a result, agents of change can
barely communicate with an assumption that there is a single world to which everyone has
access, or a mutual expressive language that reflects that world. On the other hand, social view
treats resistance as a personal property located “over there, in them/it” that is free from any
interactions with others.
Comparison of the views
In all the three views; social, mechanistic and conversational view on managing resistance,
resistance is considered beneficial. This is because of arguments that have been raised regarding
its role as an asset to the accomplishments of change. Resistance buys time to learn and adapt

5
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
and if it were not for it, bad ideas would be initiated and implemented right along the bad ones. It
is therefore not completely a ‘bad’ thing.
Both the mechanistic and conversational view on managing resistance portrays it as a product of
interaction. According to the latter, whenever individuals talk, they are insentiently speaking
about organizations, their relationships, and as well about whole institutions into being. It is
these exchanges of ideas and views that institute the setting in which individuals act and the
content and processes through which things get done hence making it interactive. Similarly, the
mechanistic view believes that resistance occurs due to interactions between agents of change
and the recipients of change, behaviors and actions.
In both the social and mechanistic view, resistance to change is considered detrimental. The
social view puts it as detrimental or harmful since it is generally challenging to deal with
disagreements and objections and or other destructive-sounding comportments and
communications within the organization. Similarly, mechanistic view describes resistance as
being neutral although it can be proved detrimental depending on the objective, goal or setting in
which it takes place.
All the three views to managing resistance to change agree that resistance is habitual. It is
unlikely that people innovate new forms of resistance but rather more likely for them to continue
doing what they already know to do. Consequently, resistance to change might not vary
significantly from normal resistance, at least not in the initial phases of change. The change
recipients may escalate their resistance behaviors by tempering with the content or form of their
responses if they find that their communications are not being considered or appreciated.

6
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Resistance to change is a normal and expected action and can therefore be managed (Jimmieson
& Alannah E. Rafferty , 2016). Below are various ways in which managers can positively and
actively manage it;
Managers can manage change resistance by pinpointing the primary cause of the resistance. They
should not only focus on the symptoms of the resistance when it occurs but should look more
profoundly into what is eventually causing it. This involves comprehending an individual is
resistant, not just how that resistance is revealing itself. This can be achieved by having personal
conversations between the supervisor and the resistant employee.
Managers can also effectively manage resistance by engaging the appropriate resistance
managers, that is, leaders that are competent in their resistance management role. This means
that they should be endowed with the suitable knowledge and skills to recognize resistance,
address the root cause from both an individual and organizational viewpoint and take the suitable
actions.
Finally, managers will effectively manage resistance to change if they expect it. They should
look at all possible sources of resistance and the likely objections that could drive it before it
actually happens. They should then act on this knowledge ahead of time by; addressing it
upfront, proper communication or assuring the employees on the importance of the change
(Ammendolia, et al., 2016).
One of the most inexplicable and intractable of the challenges which business executives
encounter is employee resistance to change. Such resistance can take various forms: increase in
the number of requests for transfer and “quits, sullen hostility, chronic quarrels, expression of a
lot of pseudological reasons why the change will not work. Resistance is a natural and inevitable

7
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
reaction to change; it is however possible to control the duration, cost and impact of resistance.
Proper management during the change process minimizes impact to the change recipients,
increases the effectiveness of the overall change management program and promotes growth and
improvements (Creme, Denise M. Rousseau, & Jeroen Stouten, 2018).

8
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
References
Ammendolia, C., Pierre Côté, Carol Cancelliere, J. David Cassidy, Jan Hartvigsen, Eleanor
Boyle, et al. (2016). using intervention mapping to design a workplace health promotion
and wellness program to improve presenteeism. Healthy and productive workers, 1190
pages.
Bristow, A., Sarah Robinson, & Olivier Ratle. (2017). Being an Early-Career CMS Academic in
the Context of Insecurity and ‘Excellence’: The Dialectics of Resistance and Compliance.
Organization Studies, 463-474.
Courpasson, D., & Steven P Vallas. (2016). The SAGE handbook of resistance. London ;
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Creme, D. D., Denise M. Rousseau, & Jeroen Stouten. (2018). Successful Organizational
Change: Integrating the Management Practice and Scholarly Literatures. Academy of
Management, 326-1900.
Hobfoll, S. E., & Freedy, J. (2017). Conservation of Resources: A General Stress Theory
Applied To Burnout. Professional Burnout, page 15.
Jimmieson, N. L., & Alannah E. Rafferty . (2016). Direct and Mediated Relationships with
Employee Well‐being. Subjective Perceptions of Organizational Change and Employee
Resistance to Change, 248-264.

9
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Jimmieson, N. L., & Alannah E. Rafferty . (2016). Subjective Perceptions of Organizational
Change and Employee Resistance to Change: Direct and Mediated Relationships with
Employee Well‐being. British Journal Management, Pages 248-264.
Kray, L., J.,Howland, Laura, Russell, Alexandra G, Jackman, et al. (2017). The effects of
implicit gender role theories on gender system justification: Fixed beliefs strengthen
masculinity to preserve the status quo. journal of personality and social psychology, 98–
115.
Nugent, J. P. (2018). Confronting Deindustrialization and Urban Renewal as a Neoliberal Socio-
Ecological Fix through Social Movement Alliance-Forming in Toronto, Canada.
Resistance Along the Rails, 90.
Woods, D. D. (2018). Essential Characteristics of Resilience. Resilience Engineering, 14 page.