Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reaction of Change
Reaction of Change
It is reasonable to expect
employees to react since the process of change involves going from the known to the unknown,
and when employees react, it is important to distinguish between the symptoms of their
reactions and the causes behind them.”
Employees’ Reactions to
Organizational Change
By Cynthia Wittig Literature indicates that a high proportion Employees’ Emotions and Cognitions
of change initiatives are unsuccessful (Beer
& Nohria, 2000). Researchers generally Many change efforts fail since change
agree that employee resistance is one of the agents underestimate the importance of
leading causes for the failure of change ini- the individual, cognitive-affective nature
tiatives (Bovey & Hede, 2001b; Waldersee of change (Ertuk, 2008), and emotions
& Griffiths, 1996). Such findings indicate and cognition are closely intertwined
that change agents focusing on employee (Pessoa, 2008). The following separate
reactions—including resistance and accep- yet interrelated aspects of emotions and
tance—during organizational change is of cognitions impact employees’ reactions
utmost importance to the success of the to organizational change: emotional
initiative. In response, this paper provides intelligence, irrational thoughts, defense
a model that illustrates the process of how mechanisms, and employee attitudes.
employees’ reactions to change are formed.
Emotional intelligence. Emotional intel-
Employees’ Reactions to ligence (EI) is “the capacity for recognizing
Organizational Change our own feelings and those of others, for
motivating ourselves, and for managing
Employees’ reactions to change are influ- emotions well in ourselves and in our rela-
enced by a number of factors. It is reason- tionships” (Vakola, Tsaousis, & Nikolaou,
able to expect employees to react since the 2004). The role of EI in employees’ reac-
process of change involves going from the tions to change is important because indi-
known to the unknown, and when employ- viduals with high levels of EI experience
ees react, it is important to distinguish more career success, feel less job insecu-
between the symptoms of their reactions rity, are more effective in team leadership
and the causes behind them (Bovey & and performance, are more adaptable to
Hede, 2001b). Following is an analysis of stressful events, and exhibit better coping
three factors that research strongly identi- strategies than those with low EI levels
fies as influencing employees’ reactions to (Vakola, Tsaousis, & Nikolaou, 2004).
change: employees’ emotions and cogni-
tions, communication, and employees’ Irrational thoughts. Research indicates
participation in decision making. Evidence that irrational ideas are significantly and
suggests that these factors explain much of positively correlated with employees’ resis-
employees’ reactions, arguably more than tance to change. Individuals tend to have
other factors present during organizational automatic thoughts that incorporate what
change. Although these factors are closely has been described as faulty, irrational, or
related and can even be considered inter- “crooked thinking” (Bovey & Hede, 2001a).
woven in many ways, each factor contrib- During change, employees create their own
utes individual and important information. interpretations of what is going to happen,
can be attained, and that once attained, such different levels of acceptance in Orga- Traversing the spectrum
remain attained. Phrases such as “elimi- nization A (mild acceptance) and Organi-
nate employee resistance” (Jones & Smith, zation B (strong acceptance), stating that As employees’ levels of acceptance and
2001) and “gain employee acceptance” each organization achieved the same level resistance fluctuate during the change
(Sigler, 1999) may indicate that organi- of employee acceptance is hardly plausible. initiative, the employees’ location on the
zations can reach these milestones in Herein lays the framework of the Spectrum spectrum moves from one end to the
change initiatives in the same manner; for of Employees’ Reactions to Organizational other. Factors and events that impact
example, that the organization may achieve Change (SEROC), as illustrated in Figure 1. employees’ reactions affect employees’
the goals of completing the initiative in The fundamental concept of the locations on the spectrum and are repre-
the number of days allotted (the project is SEROC is that different degrees and inten- sented on the SEROC by vectors exhibit-
either completed in less or more than the sities of employee reactions to change exist. ing the same properties as vectors found
days allotted). However, this is not the case Employees’ reactions, as defined by the in mathematical contexts, as illustrated
in the author’s experience. Rather, the line employees’ level of resistance and accep- in Figure 2 (next page). Vectors originate
in employees’ reactions to organizational tance, are polar opposites on a spectrum, at the neutral point, and vectors vary in
change between resistance and acceptance and neutral or indifferent reactions that are direction (pointing toward the acceptance
is often blurred. mild in strength are found in the middle or resistance end of the spectrum) and
To enable change agents to identify of the spectrum. Employees are always magnitude (large magnitudes indicate very
employees’ acceptance and resistance, it located on the spectrum, and their loca- influential factors and small magnitudes
is important to operationalize definitions tion is determined by the strength of their indicate mildly influential factors) depend-
of reactions to change. Resistance is a reaction. ing on the factors of change they represent.
multidimensional attitude toward change, The scale of the spectrum is con- The employees’ position on the spectrum
comprising affective (feelings toward the sidered both ordinal and cardinal. An is determined by the overall sum of the
change), cognitive (evaluations of worth employee who is twice as accepting of (or vectors.
and benefit of the change), and behav- resistant to) the change is on the spectrum Although factors (represented by
ioral (intention to act against the change) twice as far from neutral. Since there is no vectors on the spectrum) actively change
components (Oreg, 2006). Each of these “zero” of reactions to change, neutral or employees’ levels of resistance and
dimensions can be characterized as rang- indifferent is considered “zero,” or equilib- acceptance, change agents’ passiveness
ing from “acceptance” to “resistance.” rium. When analyzing employees’ loca- also impacts employees’ reactions. In
When these three dimensions are con- tion on the spectrum, one must consider the author’s experience, when change
sidered in the aggregate, the result is the that reactions to change are relative, and, agents fail to introduce new factors to
employees’ overall acceptance or resistance therefore, one must recall the operational elicit employee acceptance of change, the
to change. definitions of reactions to change. intensity of the employees’ acceptance of
The author experienced change initia- change dwindles and they begin to resist
tives in two unrelated organizations that P1: O
ne cannot achieve minimal resistance or the change. To illustrate this phenomenon
through juxtaposition illustrate the com- attain maximum acceptance as concrete on the SEROC, without the introduction
plexity of employees’ reactions. In Organi- milestones. Rather, employees’ reactions to of vectors to continually move employees
zation A, employees were mildly accepting organizational change, as defined by the toward the acceptance polar end of the
of the organizational change and passively employees’ level of resistance and accep- spectrum, employees return to the neutral
gave into the changes. In Organization B, tance, are represented by polar opposites position on the spectrum as time passes.
employees were strongly accepting of the on a spectrum, and neutral reactions that As employees continually regress toward
change and actively demonstrated their are mild in strength are represented in the neutral, it becomes increasingly easier for
support by embracing the changes and middle of the spectrum. them to become located on the resistance
initiating actions aligned with the initiative. section of the spectrum.
One could argue that both Organization
A and Organization B achieved employee
acceptance of the change. However, with
P2: F
actors and events that impact employees’ employees were partially hesitant to accept Subsequently in the course of the
resistance to change are represented on the the change and mildly resisted because initiative, the change agents failed to
spectrum as vectors of varying magnitudes they perceived that their jobs may be provide employees with sufficient com-
and directions. The effect of all factors eliminated. Overall, the employees on the munication regarding a new policy, despite
(represented by the sum of all vectors) is organizational level reacted to the change otherwise effective communication. There-
the employees’ level of acceptance or resis- with somewhat strong resistance, as shown fore, the employees’ acceptance of the
tance to change. in Figure 3. change started to diminish and employees
To illustrate the application of SEROC, Later in the course of the change, returned toward the resistance end of the
return to the author’s experience of Organi- change agents created a PDM initiative in spectrum. Because this factor only slightly
zation A, in which employees were mildly which employees’ concerns were addressed increased employees’ resistance, ineffec-
accepting of a change initiative to restruc- and the employees felt they had contrib- tive communication processes are repre-
ture organizational roles. Examination of uted to the outcome of the initiative. On sented by a vector with a small magnitude
the employees’ initial reactions indicated the SEROC, the PDM initiative is repre- positioned toward the resistance end of
most employees resisted the change. They sented by a vector that moves the organi- the spectrum.
feared for their job security and lacked trust zation toward the acceptance end of the After the two aforementioned factors
in management. A small group of employ- spectrum. Because the PDM accounted for occurred and impacted employees’ reac-
ees, however, accepted this change because a great deal of acceptance in the employ- tions, the employees still mildly accepted
they saw opportunity for promotion. ees, the vector is of a large magnitude (see the change. This mild acceptance of the
Despite their acceptance of the change, the Figure 4, next page). change is represented by the sum of the
Key
Individual employees
two vectors, which both originated at neu- Application of employees’ reactions because in reality
tral on the spectrum, as shown in Figure 4. there can be n-dimensions. Factors that
As the process described above continued Change initiatives are dynamic, and factors impact employees’ reactions do not have
and factors were continually introduced continually arise that affect employee’s additive properties like one-dimensional
to employees, their reactions to change reactions. As a result, employees’ reactions vectors in the SEROC, but rather, the
fluctuated and the employees’ location on are consistently fluctuating and never factors interact in a multiplicative, multi-
the spectrum traversed the length of the stagnant. Employees’ reactions to organi- dimensional manner that makes employ-
spectrum. zational change must be considered “in the ees’ reactions complex. Second, although
moment” rather than over the span of the this model is based in empirical evidence,
Mutually Exclusive entire initiative (Lewin, 1951). As change being tested in authentic settings during
agents progress through the process of the organizational change initiatives would
Examining the relationship between resis- change initiative, it is important that they validate the model. Despite these limita-
tance to and acceptance of change is impor- continually assess the employees’ reac- tions, the SEROC model does present a
tant to fully understand the SEROC. The tions to change, diagnose the causes for unique lens through which to view employ-
former example illustrates that employees their reactions (both negative and positive ees’ reactions to change that should not be
can react with both resistance and accep- causes), address the employees’ concerns, disregarded.
tance (Harding, 2005). This concept is and repeat the process.
logical because situations rarely exist with When applied to the SEROC model, Conclusions
purely positive outcomes or purely nega- the latter process translates to identifying
tive outcomes. Rather, almost all situa- where the employees are located on the Organizational change is necessary for
tions present both positive and negative spectrum, diagnosing the reasons that businesses to remain competitive in today’s
outcomes. Therefore, it is expected that determine their location on the spectrum, market. To successfully implement change
even employees who are very accepting addressing the employees’ concerns to ini- initiatives, change agents must understand
of change exhibit resistance as a result of tiate a factor (represented by a vector) that that the role of employees is highly impor-
identifying negative aspects of the change. moves the employees toward the accep- tant, and employees’ reactions to change
Consequently, the argument can be made tance end of the spectrum, and repeating are influenced by a number of factors,
that acceptance and resistance are not the sequence. Continually monitoring including employees’ emotions and cogni-
mutually exclusive and employees exhibit employees’ reactions is especially impor- tions, communication, and participation in
both of these reactions. When respond- tant because evidence exists that change decision making. Change agents can apply
ing to the question, “did the employees initiatives fail due to the lack of attention the Spectrum of Employees’ Reactions to
accept or reject the change initiative?”, to human factors in the long run (Eilam & Organizational Change as a unique model
change agents should usually state that the Shamir, 2005). that illustrates how employees react to
employees partially accepted and partially change. This model is based in the concept
rejected the change initiative. Limitations that the degree of employees’ acceptance
of or resistance is an important factor that
P3: E mployees react to organizational change Despite the model of SEROC being based change agents should examine. Overall,
with both micro-levels of resistance and in scientific literature, the model does this paper provides OD practitioners
acceptance. Employees’ overall reaction is possess certain limitations. First, one important information about employees’
dependent on which reaction (resistance could argue that this two dimension model reactions to change, and organizations will
or acceptance) is stronger. over-simplifies the highly complex nature benefit from further research in this field.