Is obedience, not resistance, the real organizational change killer

In peer-reviewed organizational change literature, most scholars have examined resistance to change (R2C) and commitment to change (C2C) as separate, distinct constructs. Industry research often cites employee R2C as one of the top reasons for organizational change initiative failure. Industry and scholarly researchers, alike, have studied many facets of R2C, often making the value judgment that R2C is negative or an inhibitor of successful organizational change. Most practitioners, and a handful of scholarly theorists, view R2C and C2C as opposite ends of the same spectrum. This group also views reactions to organizational change in a value frame. The purpose of this paper is to examine the behavioral reactions to change through a value free lens. Building upon the work of several different scholars, this theoretical paper presents a new framework that includes R2C and C2C types of behaviors, but from a non-evaluative point of view...

VOLUME 13 Change Management An International Journal Is Obedience, Not Resistance, the Real Organizational Change Killer? RON KOLLER, RICK FENWICK, AND RICK FENWICK, JR ontheorganization.com CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL www.ontheorganization.com First published in 2013 in Champaign, Illinois, USA by Common Ground Publishing LLC www.commongroundpublishing.com ISSN: 2327-798X © 2013 (individual papers), the author(s) © 2013 (selection and editorial matter) Common Ground All rights reserved Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this work may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the publisher For permissions and other inquiries, please contact cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com Change Management: An International Journal is peer-reviewed, supported by rigorous processes of criterionreferenced article ranking and qualitative commentary, ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published Is Obedience, Not Resistance, the Real Organizational Change Killer? Ron Koller, Capella University, USA Rick Fenwick, Capella University, USA Rick Fenwick, Jr., Capella University, USA Abstract: In peer-reviewed organizational change literature, most scholars have examined resistance to change (R2C) and commitment to change (C2C) as separate, distinct constructs Industry research often cites employee R2C as one of the top reasons for organizational change initiative failure Industry and scholarly researchers, alike, have studied many facets of R2C, often making the value judgment that R2C is negative or an inhibitor of successful organizational change Most practitioners, and a handful of scholarly theorists, view R2C and C2C as opposite ends of the same spectrum This group also views reactions to organizational change in a value frame The purpose of this paper is to examine the behavioral reactions to change through a value free lens Building upon the work of several different scholars, this theoretical paper presents a new framework that includes R2C and C2C types of behaviors, but from a non-evaluative point of view Keywords: Organizational change, Resistance to change, Commitment to change, Obedience Introduction S eventy percent of change initiatives fail in achieving or sustaining the desired results (Higgs and Rowland 2005, 121; Maurer 2010; Miller 2002; Pellettiere 2006; Warrick 2009) Though researchers cannot empirically confirm the seventy percent change management failure rate (Hughes 2011, 451), the common observation is that organizational change continues to wane (Burnes 2011, 446) Many managers see employees who resist change as not being able to understand the situation (Cawsey and Deszca 2007) and think of highly committed employees as individuals who understand the benefits of the change (Crosby and Johnson 2003) This interpretation is self-serving and “acts as a defensive shield” (Cawsey and Deszca, 2007, 178) It can result in a missed opportunity to engage workers and can create unnecessary resistance For example, Kotter describes four common reasons employees may resist change to include self-interest, misunderstanding, different assessments of consequences, and low tolerance for change (as cited in Cawsey and Deszca 2007) While most researchers focus primarily on resistance to change (R2C) or commitment to change (C2C), blind obedience is another expected employee response that few researchers have examined as a part of the organizational change discussion (Cummings and Worley 2008) When one thinks of psychology and obedience, the conversation often starts with Stanley Milgram (1963) and the thought that authority figures manipulate unsuspecting people to perform behaviors they would normally not perform without pressure from an authority figure Recent researchers (Perry 2012) have moved beyond the discussions of harming subjects and call into question the face validity of Milgram’s conclusions For example, Milgram’s (1963) tightly controlled the experiments so that subjects were acting in isolation from anyone but the authority figure Subjects were unable to communicate with other peers This control, while making sense from a research perspective, does not reflect the realities of the workplace In most real world workplaces, individuals not work in complete isolation They have the opportunity to advise a peer to say, “if you don’t think you should this, then don’t it.” Change Management: An International Journal Volume 13, 2013, ontheorganization.com, ISSN: 2327-798X © Common Ground, Ron Koller, Rick Fenwick, Rick Fenwick, Jr., All Rights Reserved Permissions: cg-support@commongroundpublishing.com CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL These experiments branded obedience as a destructive behavior In organizational change, managers not say, “we expect you to obey,” yet it is an expected behavior as part of the change process The paradox lies in that managers lament that employees not fully commit to change, yet expect subordinates to be obedient to their every command (Paton and McCalman 2008, 183) In any change process, leadership assume that if they make a logical case for change, then employees will obey the communication messaging and training programs often accompanying strategic organizational change initiatives While managers may not be explicit in their expectation of obedience, they are more open about their frustration with employee resistance In the minds of managers, R2C is bad; something that managers need to overcome (Coch and French 1948, 512; Bovey and Hede) as opposed to being a logical reaction to a change which makes the employee’s job more difficult Recent research into the concept of positive deviance is arguing that some employee resistance is good, and even essential (Spreitzer and Sonenshein 2004; Appelbaum et al 2007) On the other hand, C2C is something nearly all managers assume is good To view R2C or C2C as categorically good or bad is to make a value judgment This evaluative approach can lead to false assumptions because not all resistance is bad, nor is all commitment good Employees see change from a different perspective than leaders or change agents Employees who are blindly obedient cannot or not point out critical problems or opportunities that result in failure or stagnation of the change initiative They are neither engaged nor motivated to change Table uses descriptors by scholarly theorists of R2C and C2C as constructs with optimal and sub-optimal amounts, i.e too little or too much are undesirable If an employee demonstrates not enough (passive) or too much (destructive) RTC, their behavior will negatively impact the change Similarly, if the employee does not show enough commitment (blind obedience) or too much commitment (over-commitment), their behavior will negatively impact the change Table shows that when leaders or employee demonstrates an optimal amount of resistance (not too little or too much), they improve the overall quality of the change initiative However, when leaders or employees demonstrate sub-optimal amounts of resistance (too much or too little), their behavior negatively impacts the change Constructive deviance is an existing term; peak commitment is the term this paper uses to denote optimal commitment as supported by the research of Randall (1987), Coetsee (1999), Morin et al (2013), and Siegrist et al (2004) Optimal Sub-optimal Passive Resistance Resistance to Change Constructive Deviance Destructive Deviance Blind Obedience Commitment to Change Peak Commitment Over-commitment Figure 1: Optimization and Maximization Frames If R2C and C2C can occur simultaneously in the same individual, what quantitative constructs bind these behavioral forces? This paper presents The Behavioral Reactions to Change model that focuses on an employee’s energy and compliance for change It presents a more comprehensive view of reactions to change considering both advantages and disadvantages KOLLER, ET AL.: IS OBEDIENCE, NOT RESISTANCE, THE REAL CHANGE KILLER? of R2C and C2C This paper will explore an alternative concept of R2C and C2C that integrates the constructs as part of a larger whole rather than as separate constructs To so requires a different way of thinking than most empirical researchers utilize Many R2C researchers utilize a reductionist view that separates R2C from C2C Reductionism posits that the results of an organizational change are the sum total of the behavior of the individuals undergoing that change Martin and Dawda (2002, 39) describe the challenges of maintaining such a view outside of the laboratory: “because many psychological phenomena are complex, multidimensional, and context dependent, the attempted reduction of these phenomena to a known set of constitutive elements for research purposes seldom is accomplished without injury or alteration to the phenomena in question.” The reductionist point of view also relies on linearity and maximization in arguing that too much R2C results in failure (Beer 2008; Furst and Cable 2008, 453) Few theorists and researchers have offered a comprehensive model to explain individual behavior during a strategic organizational change (Oreg et al 2011) One argument against reductionism is that R2C and C2C can occur simultaneously and to a different degree within the same employee or leader reacting to an organizational change (Foster 2010, 21) Judson (1991, 48) conceived of R2C and C2C as one continuum Herscovitch and Meyer (2002, 475) tested this theory, creating a resistance-to-commitment continuum metric Both authors conceived of the resistance-commitment continuum as being linear along one dimension Rather than using an evaluative frame to analyze R2C and C2C as separate constructs with normative values, this paper will also introduce a non-evaluative frame to view the model The model attempts to present a more comprehensive view of reactions to change using R2C and C2C as variables within a frame rather than each as within their own frames The next sections will highlight the R2C and C2C research and present the non-evaluative frame required to create the model Resistance to change Lawler and Worley (2011) argue that without the ability to change and adapt to an unstable environment, organizations cannot sustain high performance The majority of change processes fail to successfully achieve desired goals (Beer 2003) Resistance to change is a common factor cited as one of the reasons that organization change initiatives fail (Furst and Cable 2008, 453; Lewis 2011) Most theorists and researchers view R2C in one of two ways The first view sees R2C as neutral, impartial, and objective (Dent and Goldberg 1999, 25; Lewin 1947, 7) The second view sees R2C as partial and subjective (Agboola and Salawu 2011, 237; Bovey and Hede 2001, 373; Smollan 2011, 12) This paper will differentiate between these two views by using the term non-evaluative for view one and evaluative for view two Table provides descriptors for R2C used by both points of view This table is not an exhaustive list, nor is it able to show any overlaps; it is just a summary of basic terms Table 2: Frames of Resistance Non-evaluative Frame Evaluative Frame Neutral Factual Mathematical Mechanistic Natural The Rule Good or bad Judgmental Perceptual Emotional Unnatural Exceptional CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL The non-evaluative view of resistance is quantitative, meaning one can count a phenomenon and conclude it is high or low The evaluative view, on the other hand, relies on value judgments from the observer rather than counting In this view, researchers subjectively judge the value of resistance as good or bad The non-evaluative view sees resistance as a neutral and natural phenomenon that is a product of the interaction between two or more people (Ford and Ford 2009, 214) Lewin (1935, 58) infused the natural science of physics with the social science of psychology when he conceived of resistance as a force driving toward equilibrium The evaluative view sees resistance as undesirable, something to be overcome (Coch and French 1948, 512; Moore 2011) The evaluative view assumes that resistance is the result of irrational thinking (Bovey and Hede 2001, 373) Some researchers have studied R2C using the mathematics of energy and force as a nonevaluative frame Coetsee (1999, 208; 2011, 226) and O’Connor (1993, 32) conceived of resistance to change as a phenomenon ranging from low to high-energy behaviors Low energy R2C behaviors include: apathy, indifference, and passivity Managers often refer to this behavior as passive resistance High-energy resistance behaviors include opposition, blocking, and subversion Raes et al (2013, 173) and Cole et al (2012, 446) explored the detrimental effects of high energy in organizations They posited a model with sub-optimal zones of comfortable energy/resigned inertia, and corrosive energy However, they inject values into their model by judging a difference between good quality and bad quality energy Commitment to change Conner and Patterson (1982, 19) argued that commitment was a threshold only achieved once an individual worked through a preparation and acceptance phase Researchers have used the terms support and acceptance as synonyms in an organizational change context (Fedor, et al 2006, 3) Ford and Ford (2009, 221) list compliance, acceptance, and agreement as separate facets of commitment Coetsee (1999, 208; 2011, 226) contends C2C has the same energy or magnitude properties as R2C He uses the term over-commitment for the highest magnitude commitment Interestingly, no researchers postulate the commitment equivalent of passive resistance Two frequently used terms for low-energy commitment are apathy (Coetsee 1999, 208) and compliance (Ford and Ford 2009, 221; Herscovitch and Meyer 2002, 475) Obedience is a term not used in an organizational change context, but one that fits as a similar profile of someone passively resisting The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology (2013) defines obedience as “acting in accordance with rules or orders In most contemporary work in psychology, the term is used as roughly synonymous with compliance” (para 1) From the point of view that holds resistance and commitment as mirror opposites, obedience is a suitable twin of passive resistance Milgram (1974) contends that obedience "consists in the fact that a person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer regards himself as responsible for his actions” (xx) In laymen's terms this is saying, "hey, it's not my fault this didn't work out … I was just doing what I was told." The presence of obedience enables the blame cycle and finger pointing between upper management, change agents, middle management, and employees Obedience creates the illusion of commitment because individuals are able to claim they are acting in accordance with management’s wishes The introduction of ISO 9000 in the 1990s rebranded the term compliance in organizations (Brumm 1995, 73) Because of Sarbanes-Oxley, compliance is a common goal of Financial and IT departments in recent times (Christensen and DeLoach, 2012) In academic research, compliance (Cialdini and Goldstein, 2004) is only a short-term or one-time affirmative response KOLLER, ET AL.: IS OBEDIENCE, NOT RESISTANCE, THE REAL CHANGE KILLER? It is not sustainable, which is why it requires watchdog auditors to continually police the new policies created during a change initiative Integrative View of Resistance-Commitment Behaviors While I-O psychologists generally reject behaviorism as a universal workplace theory of performance (Landy and Conte 2010, 371), the stimulus-response portion may be relevant for behavioral responses to organizational change Though obedience is a lower form of commitment (Cialdini and Goldstein 2004), a brief review of some recent R2C research is required to understand its equivalent phenomenon relating to C2C Nevin’s (2009) research shows a stimulus-response bond in people experiencing R2C If employee R2C is the response, this begs the question what is the stimulus? While early researchers explored management behavior as the primary stimuli of employee R2C (Zander, 1950), most of the contemporary research on R2C eliminates smaller variables and uses one broader variable, change Organizational change is the stimulus, while employee R2C is the response with irrational beliefs on the part of employees as the primary cause (Bovey and Hede, 2001) Ford and Ford (2008) criticize the assumption underlying this contemporary R2C research: It’s true that resistance can be irrational and self-serving But like it or not, it is an important form of feedback Dismissing it robs you of a powerful tool as you implement change It takes a strong leader to step up and engage when a change effort meets with pushback If you can gain perspective by paying attention to, understanding, and learning from behaviors you perceive as threatening, you will ultimately deliver better results (100) The implications for R2C and C2C theory are two-fold First, rather than reducing R2C and C2C down as static behaviors, a systemic frame is more appropriate, at least considering management and change agent behavior as one of the stimuli of an employee’s response to change Second, the absence of resistance, though easier to manage, is not a successful change strategy Obedience or compliance responses are less effective than ownership and commitment responses Managers need to understand that their change leadership behavior causes a complex range of responses that are not as simple as bad (resistance) or good (absence of resistance/obedience) The Judson (1991, 48) and Herscovitch and Meyer (2002, 475) linear view of the resistancecommitment continuum provides no explanation as to what binds these two phenomenon In further developing the concept, Coetsee (2011, 226) created a cycle, implying nonlinearity While not explicit, he implies that energy (intensity) is one force that explains a bound resistance-commitment concept From a two-dimensional model perspective, this energy could serve as one axis Organizational deviance is another field of study that examines R2C and C2C at the same time (Leavy 2011, 20; Pascale et al 2010, 16) While most organizations will fire an individual exhibiting deviant behavior, these researchers simply equate deviance to mean departure from the norm (Ferris et al 2009, 279; Lawrence and Robinson, 2007, 380) Research on deviance in organizations focuses on the degree of compliance an individual exhibits in the workplace (Warren 2005, 132) Compliance is the second possibility of a force that involves both resistance and commitment, and could serve as another axis for a two-dimensional model Managers characterize a noncompliant individual as resistant and a compliant individual as committed to a change CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Behavioral Reactions to Change Model A 60-year review of quantitative studies of commitment to organizational change literature (Oreg et al 2011) concluded: “The main determinant of the extent to which any change can succeed, is how change recipients react to organizational change” (2) The integrative frame (theory) and corresponding planned empirical research is attempting to create a model that more accurately explains change recipient reactions to change that are traditionally conceived of as either R2C or C2C behaviors The prior section introduced energy and compliance as two distinct concepts that explain the binding of resistance and commitment as a two-dimensional or nonlinear construct The model offers a way of examining the dynamics of change It assumes that a person’s behavior is dynamic and their level of energy relative to a change may shift over time An individual’s energy for a change fluctuates over time because of a wide variety of reason Compliance to the standards of a change also fluctuates over time, both because management cannot constantly monitor behavior and the standard of compliance is managed inconsistently The model in Figure illustrates the four quadrants based upon levels of energy and levels of compliance In any organizational change scenario, employees will fall into one of the four quadrants based upon their level of compliance and their level of energy Listed in each quadrant are the titles and attitudes that tie in with each category Figure 1: Behavioral Reactions to Change Model In Figure 1, the vertical axis represents energy (low to high), while the horizontal axis represents compliance (low to high) The descriptor for a person’s behavior depends upon this combination of energy and compliance For example, if a person has low energy and is noncompliant, their behavior is described as inactivity Low energy and compliant is described as obedience High energy and noncompliant is described as opposition, while high energy and KOLLER, ET AL.: IS OBEDIENCE, NOT RESISTANCE, THE REAL CHANGE KILLER? compliant behavior is described as ownership Figure also contains synonyms or equivalent behaviors for each of the four quadrants The rest of this section will provide a brief explanation of each quadrant, as well as an important role that nonlinearity plays in this model, a phenomenon also referred to as dynamism Inactivity If a person has low energy and is noncompliant, their behavior is described as inactive It can be expressed in different forms to include apathy, passivity, procrastination, or busywork When a person experiences apathy, they passively resist change They not think it will work nor they care; they are resigned to their leader’s requests for action A person who is cynical towards leaders and the work often resides in this quadrant for many organizational changes Obedience Low energy and compliant is described as obedient A person who is obedient with low energy is looking for the path of least resistance They will accept what comes their way as the best way to avoid conflict They have surrendered to making a difference with their own behavior They are often skeptical of leaders and work They not believe the change will work, but they will accept what they are asked to Opposition If a person has high energy and is noncompliant, they are in opposition to change They create conflict and are actively resistant to changes These individuals will disobey to the point of obstruction Their high energy is reflective of a high level of caring as well, although they not consider any damage caused from their opposition They feel strongly about their ideas relative to the change They may advocate for an alternative or for status quo Ownership If a person has high energy and is compliant, they have taken ownership for the change They believe in the change and are an advocate They actively support the change and have enthusiasm for it as well They are invested in the original change plan and the predicted outcomes They often, however, not have the support of their peers and eventually experience burnout as the change evolves Dynamism Individuals are unable to sustain high levels of energy indefinitely It is abnormal to sustain high (or low) levels of energy for a particular change at all times A person who takes ownership for change may have a period where they are obedient and using less energy A person who opposed the change may become inactive for periods The reverse flow of energy is also expected Compliance will fluctuate and flow in both directions as well A person who opposed change and is empowered to self-organize the change process may move to ownership more quickly than the resigned individual who lacks energy and enthusiasm Inactive individuals often move to obedience when they are no longer able to evade monitoring and run out of excuses about why they cannot comply CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Implications for Management, Researchers, and Practitioners Ownership for a change and obedience to a change are two different responses Managers need to understand that they stimulate ownership or obedience when they lead change whether they realize it or not Employees who openly support change have energy, while employees who are obedient to change lack energy Nadler and Tushman (1989, 198) argued that initiating and implementing organizational change requires energy Does the way a manager extinguishes resistance also unintentionally quell support for a change? Many researchers have explored resistance as “bad” and commitment as “good.” This subjective point of view reinforces management’s assumption that part of their job is to drive out all resistance Science attempts to reduce value judgments and maintain neutrality/objectivity This paper has argued for a more objective way to study the dynamics of individual reactions to organizational change in an integrated fashion The hypothesized model contains quantitative concepts demonstrating magnitude/strength, rather than a value judgment This model considers the dynamism of change and looks beyond resistance and commitment as value judged (qualitative) concepts In doing this, the model offers greater explanatory power in understanding the dynamics of change Empirical data gathering to test this theory will begin shortly KOLLER, ET AL.: IS OBEDIENCE, NOT RESISTANCE, THE REAL CHANGE KILLER? REFERENCES Agboola, Akinlolu A., and Rafiu O Salawu 2011 “Managing deviant behavior and resistance to change.” International Journal Of Business & Management 61: 235-42 Appelbaum, Steven H., Giulio D Iaconi, and Albert Matousek 2007 "Positive and negative deviant workplace behaviors: causes, impacts, and solutions." Corporate Governance 7: 586-98 doi: 10.1108/14720700710827176 Beer, Michael 2003 “Why total quality management programs not persist: The role of management quality and implications for leading a TQM transformation.” Decision Sciences 34: 623-42 doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5414.2003.02640.x Bovey, Wayne, and Andrew A Hede 2001 “Resistance to organizational change: The role of defense mechanisms.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 167: 534-48 doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000006166 Brumm, Eugenia 1995 “Managing records for ISO 9000 compliance.” Quality Progress 281: 73-78 Burnes, Bernard 2011 “Introduction: Why does change fail, and what can we about it?” Journal Of Change Management 114: 445-50 doi: 10.1080/14697017.2011.630507 Cawsey, Tupper, and Gene Deszca 2007 Toolkit for organizational change Los Angeles, CA: Sage Christensen, Brian, and Jim DeLoach 2012 “How Sarbanes-Oxley has affected internal controls and compliance: A 10th anniversary review.” Global Association of Risk Professionals Retrieved from http://www.garp.org/risk-news-and-resources/2012/august/howsarbanes-oxley-has-affected-internal-controls-and-compliance.aspx Cialdini, Robert, and Noah Goldstein 2004 “Social influence: Compliance and conformity.” Annual Review of Psychology 551: 591-21 doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 Coch, Lester, and John R P French 1948 “Overcoming resistance to change.” Human Relations 14: 512–32 doi: 10.1177/001872674800100408 Coetsee, Leon 1999 “From resistance to commitment.” Public Administration Quarterly 232: 204-22 Retrieved from Proquest Psychology database — 2011 Peak performance and productivity: A practical guide for the creation of a motivating climate Potchefstroom: Andcork Publishers Cole, Michael, Heike Bruch, and Bernd Vogel 2012 “Energy at work: A measurement validation and linkage to unit effectiveness.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 334: 445−67 doi: 10.1177/0018726712454554 Conner, Daryl, and Robert Patterson 1982 “Building commitment to organizational change.” Training & Development Journal 364: 18-30 Retrieved from Ebscohost database Crosby, Lawrence, and Sheree L Johnson 2003 “Watch what I do: Leadership behavior sends the strongest message.” Marketing Management 126: 10-11 Retrieved from Ebscohost database Cummings, Thomas, and Christopher G Worley 2008 Organization development and change 9th ed Mason, OH: Cengage Learning Dent, Eric, and Susan G Goldberg 1999 “Challenging ‘resistance to change.’" Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 351: 25-41 doi: 10.1177/0021886399351003 Fedor, Donald, Steven Caldwell, and David M Heller 2006 “The effects of organizational changes on employee commitment: A multi-level investigation.” Personnel Psychology 591: 1–29 doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00852.x Ferris, D Lance, Douglas J Brown, and Daniel Heller 2009 “Organizational supports and organizational deviance: The mediating role of organization-based self-esteem.” CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 1082: 279-86 doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.09.001 Ford, Jeffrey, and Laurie W Ford 2009 “Resistance to change: A reexamination and extension.” Research in Organizational Change and Development 17: 211-39 Foster, Rex 2010 “Resistance, justice, and commitment to change.” Human Resource Development Quarterly 21: 3-39 Furst, Stacie, and Daniel M Cable 2008 “Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange.” Journal of Applied Psychology 932: 453-62 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.453 Herscovitch, Lynne, and John P Meyer 2002 “Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model.” Journal of Applied Psychology 87: 474-87 doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.87.3.474 Higgs, Malcolm, and Deborah Rowland 2005 “All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its leadership.” Journal of Change Management 52: 121-51 doi: 10.1080/14697010500082902 Hughes, Mark 2011 “Do 70 percent of all organizational change initiatives really fail?” Journal Of Change Management 114: 451-64 doi: 10.1080/14697017.2011.630506 Judson, Arnold 1991 Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change Cambridge: Blackwell Publishing Landy, Frank, and Jeffrey M Conte 2009 Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology 3rd ed Boston, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Lawler III, Edward, and Christopher G Worley 2011 Built to change: How to achieve sustained organizational effectiveness San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Lawrence, Thomas, and Sandra L Robinson 2007 “Ain't misbehavin: Workplace deviance as organizational resistance.” Journal of Management 333: 378-94 doi: 10.1177/0149206307300816 Leavy, Brian 2011 “Leading adaptive change by harnessing the power of positive deviance.” Strategy & Leadership 392: 18-27 doi: 10.1108/10878571111114437 Lewin, Kurt 1935 A dynamic theory of personality New York: McGraw-Hill — 1947 “Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method, and reality in social science.” Human Relations 11: 5-42 doi: 10.1177/001872674700100103 Lewis, Laurie Organizational change: Creating change through strategic communication Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Martin, Jack, and Darek Dawda 2002 "Reductionism in the Comments and Autobiographical Accounts of Prominent Psychologists." The Journal of Psychology 136: 37-52 Retrieved from Proquest database Maurer, Rick 2010 Why so many changes fail—and what you can about it Retrieved from http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/Why-So-Many-Changes-Fail-and-What-YouCan-Do-About-It.aspx Milgram, Stanley 1963 “Behavioral study of obedience.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 674: 371-78 doi: 10.1037/h0040525 — 1974 Obedience to authority: An experimental view New York, NY: Harper and Row Miller, David 2002 “Successful change leaders: What makes them? What they that is different? Journal of Change Management 24: 359-68 Retrieved from EBSCOhost database Moore, David 2011 “Overcoming resistance: Company stories helping to change learning.” Training & Development In Australia 381: 16-17 Retrieved from EBSCOhost database Morin, Alexandre, Vandenberghe, Christian, Turmel, Marie, Madore, Isabelle, and Christophe Maiano 2013 “Probing into commitment’s nonlinear relationships to work outcomes.” Journal of Managerial Psychology 28: 202-23 doi: 10.1108/02683941311300739 KOLLER, ET AL.: IS OBEDIENCE, NOT RESISTANCE, THE REAL CHANGE KILLER? Nadler, David, and Michael L Tushman 1989 “Organizational frame bending: Principles for managing reorientation.” Academy Of Management Executive 33: 194-204 doi: 10.5465/AME.1989.4274738 Nevin, John 1999 “Analyzing Thorndike’s law of effect: The questions of stimulus-response bonds.” Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 72: 447-50 doi: 10.1901/jeab.1999.72-447 Obedience 2009 In The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology Retrieved from Credoreference database O’Connor, Carol 1993 “Resistance: The repercussions of change.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 146: 30-36 Retrieved from Proquest Psychology database Oreg, Shaul, Maria Vakola, and Achilles Armenakis 2011 “Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 474: 461-524 doi: 10.1177/0021886310396550 Pascale, Richard T., Jerry Sternin, and Monique Sternin 2010 The power of positive deviance: How unlikely innovators solve the world's toughest problems Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press Paton, Robert, and James McCalman 2008 Change management: A guide to effective implementation Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Pellettiere, Vincent 2006 “Organization self-assessment to determine the readiness and risk for a planned change.” Organization Development Journal 244: 38-43 Retrieved from EBSCOhost database Raes, Anneloes, Heike Bruch, and Simon De Jong 2013 “How top management team behavioural integration can impact employee work outcomes: Theory development and first empirical tests.” Human Relations 662: 167-92 doi: 10.1177/0018726712454554 Randall, Donna 1987 “Commitment and the organization: The organization man revisited.” Academy of Management Review 12: 460-71 Siegrist, Johannes, Dagmar Starke, Tarani Chandola, Isabelle Godin, Michael Marmot, Isabelle Niedhammer, and Richard Peter 2004 “The measurement of effort-reward imbalance at work: Europeans comparisons.” Social Science & Medicine 58: 1483-99 Smollan, Roy 2011 “Engaging with Resistance to Change.” University Of Auckland Business Review 131: 12-15 Retrieved from EBSCOhost database Spreitzer, Gretchen M., and Scott Sonenshein 2004 "Toward the construct definition of positive deviance." American Behavioral Scientist 47: 828-847 Warren, Danielle 2005 “Managing noncompliance in the workplace,” in Managing organizational deviance, edited by Roland E Kidwell and Christopher L Martin, 131– 50 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Warrick, Don 2009 “Developing organizational change champions.” OD Practitioner 411: 1419 Retrieved from EBSCOhost database Zander, Alvin 1950 “Resistance to change-its analysis and prevention.” Advanced Management Journal 4: 9-11 CHANGE MANAGEMENT: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ABOUT THE AUTHORS Ron Koller: Ron is a doctoral student at Capella University He co-authored Whole-Scale Change and the Whole-Scale Change Toolkit (Berrett-Koehler, 2000) Ron worked for Kathie Dannemiller, learning first hand accounts of the work of Kurt Lewin and Ron Lippitt His industry work and scholarly research are a continuation of their work and can be found at www.ChangeStudy.com Dr Rick Fenwick: Rick has mentored I-O Psychology and Leadership doctoral dissertation students at Capella University and the University of Phoenix He is also a partner at Fenwick Koller Associates providing organization development consulting focusing on implementing change Rick has a Ph D in Organizational and Social Psychology from the Union Institute Rick Fenwick, Jr.: Rick Fenwick Jr is a doctoral learner at Capella University His specialization area is change management in union environments Rick has helped to pioneer a model of team-based culture change at General Motors He is also a consultant with Fenwick Koller Associates Change Management: An International Journal is one of four thematically focused journals in the collection of journals that support The Organization knowledge community—its journals, book series, conference and online community The journal investigates the dynamics of negotiating organizational change, and organizational responses to social, stakeholder and market change As well as papers of a traditional scholarly type, this journal invites case studies that take the form of presentations of management practice—including documentation of organizational practices and exegeses analyzing the effects of those practices Change Management: An International Journal is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal ISSN 2327-798X ... power in understanding the dynamics of change Empirical data gathering to test this theory will begin shortly KOLLER, ET AL.: IS OBEDIENCE, NOT RESISTANCE, THE REAL CHANGE KILLER? REFERENCES Agboola,... ensuring that only intellectual work of the greatest substance and highest significance is published Is Obedience, Not Resistance, the Real Organizational Change Killer? Ron Koller, Capella University,... ownership for the change They believe in the change and are an advocate They actively support the change and have enthusiasm for it as well They are invested in the original change plan and the predicted