Readiness and Resistance: Coexisting Forces

While past organizational change management literature viewed resistance and readiness as opposite poles on a continuum, more recently this perspective has evolved. More contemporary research conceptualizes resistance and readiness as orthogonal concepts, meaning they can exist simultaneously and independently of each other. This shift acknowledges that individuals can experience both positive and negative emotions, beliefs, and intentions towards a change.

Both readiness and resistance involve psychological arousal and activation of cognitive resources or emotions. Employees exhibit both of these states when they care about the change. Readiness and resistance are active states, not merely the absence of one or the other. They are now primarily understood as attitudes toward change. This shared attitudinal basis further supports the view that they are not simply opposites but can coexist.

Both resistance and readiness can also be situational and time-sensitive, fluctuating as the context of the change develops and new information becomes available. Organizations should therefore view and measure these attitudes as ongoing processes throughout the change initiative, not as simply static concerns.

While the readiness-resistance relationship is complex, effectively managing readiness (as opposed to attempting to directly manage resistance) can actually help ease and avoid perceived resistance. By addressing resistance beliefs through the four components of the change readiness message (need, valence, efficacy, and principal support), change agents can transform any apparent resistance into a readiness posture. These components work together to build support for the change and elude potential displays of resistant behaviors.

Need

This component answers the question, "Is the change necessary?" It focuses on highlighting the difference between the current state and a desired or ideal state. To effectively utilize need, change agents must clearly and convincingly demonstrate to employees that the current state is neither sustainable nor desirable. This might involve presenting compelling evidence of performance gaps, market shifts, or other factors imposing change, comparing the organization's performance to competitors or industry benchmarks, and articulating a clear purpose of the desired future state and the benefits of achieving it. The goal is to engender resolve and make it clear that continuing with the status quo is not an option.

Valence

This component answers the question, "Is this the right change?" It focuses on demonstrating that the proposed change initiative is the best solution for addressing the identified need. Change agents must present a well-reasoned rationale for the chosen approach, addressing potential concerns about its effectiveness or suitability. This may involve explaining why the proposed change is the most appropriate solution, considering alternative options. It may also include describing how the change aligns with the organization's strategic goals and values and providing evidence-based arguments and data to support the chosen solution. Management must be open to feedback and address any concerns regarding the appropriateness of the change, demonstrating flexibility and a willingness to make adjustments if necessary.

Efficacy

This component addresses the question, "Can I/we successfully make this change?" It focuses on building confidence in the organization's and individual employees' ability to implement the change effectively. Change agents can enhance efficacy by providing adequate training and resources to equip employees with the necessary skills and knowledge needed to be successful. They should celebrate early wins and progress to demonstrate that success is achievable. Management must also acknowledge and address their own doubts or limitations, ensuring they have the capabilities to lead the change effectively.

Principal Support

This component answers the question, "Who in management supports this change?" It focuses on showcasing the commitment of key organizational leaders and influencers to the change initiative. To build principal support, change agents should secure visible and vocal endorsement from top management, including the CEO and other senior leaders. They should also enlist support from influential informal leaders and respected peers within the organization and provide opportunities for these individuals to communicate their support directly to employees. Frontline supervisors also play a crucial role in conveying support and explaining the change to their teams, so their demonstrated commitment is critical.

When management is perceived as being honest and upfront about the reasons for the change, the challenges involved, and the potential costs and benefits, it can build trust and create a stronger foundation for successful change. By effectively communicating this commitment through all four components, change agents can increase the likelihood of successful change implementation by creating a more receptive and supportive environment.

See my LinkedIn Profile

Follow me on LinkedIn

Subscribe to Metamorphosis

?

Sources:

Repov?, E., Drnov?ek, M. & Ka?e, R. (2019). "Change Ready, Resistant, or Both? Exploring the Concepts of Individual Change Readiness and Resistance to Organizational Change", Economics and Business Review, 21(2):309-338.

Self, D.R., "Overcoming Resistance to Change by Managing Readiness for Change", Troy University.

Thakur, R.R. and Srivastava, S. (2018). "From Resistance to Readiness: Role of Mediating Variables". Journal of Organizational Change Management, 31(1):230-247.