Six approaches to dealing with resistance to change
When staff push back on a planned change, which approach should a CEO or department head use, given why they resist, how much power the manager holds and how urgent the change is?
- Origin
- Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979; Oreg et al., 2011
- Diagram type
- Comparison table
- Level of analysis
- Team
Diagram
Six approaches to dealing with resistance to change
| Criterion | Used when | Advantage | Drawback |
|---|---|---|---|
| Education and communication | Information or analysis is missing or inaccurate | Once persuaded, people often help with implementation | Can be very time consuming if many people are involved |
| Participation and involvement | Initiators lack the information needed to design the change, and others have considerable power to resist | Participants commit to the change, and their information goes into the plan | Can be very time consuming if participants design an inappropriate change |
| Facilitation and support | People resist because of adjustment problems | No other approach works as well for adjustment problems | Can be time consuming, expensive and still fail |
| Negotiation and agreement | Someone or some group will clearly lose out and has considerable power to resist | Sometimes a relatively easy way to avoid major resistance | Can be too expensive if it alerts others to negotiate for compliance |
| Manipulation and co-optation | Other tactics will not work or are too expensive | Can be a relatively quick and inexpensive solution to resistance | Can cause problems later if people feel manipulated |
| Explicit and implicit coercion | Speed is essential and the initiators hold considerable power | Fast, and can overcome any kind of resistance | Risky if it leaves people angry with the initiators |
When to use it, and when not to
Use it when
Choose the speed first, then the approach. Go slower if you expect intense resistance, hold less power than the resisters, or need their information and commitment; go faster when failing to change threatens performance and survival in the short run. Where there is a choice, the authors advise leaning towards the slower, more participative end, because forcing change has many negative side effects.
Pitfalls
The commonest mistake, according to Kotter and Schlesinger, is to use one approach or a narrow set of them whatever the situation, instead of diagnosing the reason for resistance first. They name four common reasons: fear of losing something of value, misunderstanding the change, believing it does not make sense for the organisation, and low tolerance for change. Oreg et al.'s (2011) review of 79 quantitative studies lists how a change is run, for example participation, communication and information, among the antecedents of recipients' reactions.
Sources
References
Listed A–Z by author surname, Harvard style. A source with a DOI links to https://doi.org/…; one without links to its page or says plainly that it has no DOI.
- Kotter, J.P. and Schlesinger, L.A. (1979) ‘Choosing strategies for change’, Harvard Business Review, 57(2), pp. 106–114.No DOIhbr.orgSource page
- Oreg, S., Vakola, M. and Armenakis, A. (2011) ‘Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: a 60-year review of quantitative studies’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), pp. 461–524.doi:10.1177/0021886310396550Cited in 1 article