21926 Chap.12 Resistance to Change and Readiness for Change
Resistance to Change and Readiness for Change
Why people resist
The Week 9 lecture groups the causes of resistance into four families: feeling overwhelmed, a negative reading of the change, fear of the unknown and fear of betrayal.
Prospect theory adds that losses are felt about twice as strongly as equal gains, and resistance can stem from rational, non-rational, political or management factors.
What resistance looks like
Active resistance is visible criticism, rumour, blame and sabotage. Passive resistance is quieter: agreeing and not following through, dragging feet or withholding help.
Ceremonial agreement, a form linked to power and politics, is a show of adoption with little real practice behind it, and managers and executives resist as well as staff.
Readiness and response
Weiner’s theory of readiness pairs change commitment, the shared resolve to implement a change, with change efficacy, the shared belief that members can do it. A ready organisation meets less resistance.
Responses run from the individual, using the change curve and ADKAR, through a readiness assessment and the design of the change, to engagement through stakeholder analysis, culture and communication. The lecture’s summary treats resistance as a positive warning sign to investigate, not a fault to punish.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Four families of resistance
- 02
Prospect theory and the pain of losing
- 03
Active, passive and ceremonial resistance
- 04
Change commitment and change efficacy
- 05
Measuring readiness
- 06
Responding from individuals to engagement
Worked example · free
Read a readiness pulse survey for two teams
- 1State the rule: readiness needs both shared resolve (commitment) and shared belief in capability (efficacy); a ready team meets the change with less resistance.
- 1Warehouse team: commitment 4.2 is high but efficacy 2.1 is low, so the team values the change and doubts it can deliver it; the gap is capability.
- 1Care team: efficacy 4.0 is high but commitment 2.4 is low, so the team could deliver but does not value the change; the gap is change valence.
- 1Respond to each gap: training, practice time and clear task instructions for the warehouse team; involvement in shaping the change and a clear account of its value for the care team. Re-survey after the first changes.
Key terms
- Change Commitment
- Members’ shared resolve to carry out a change, the first of the two parts of organisational readiness.
- Change Efficacy
- Members’ shared belief that they are collectively capable of implementing a change, shaped by task demands, resources and the situation.
- Change Valence
- How much organisational members value a proposed change, which the slides treat as the driver of change commitment.
- Passive Resistance
- Quiet opposition such as agreeing without following through, procrastinating, feigning ignorance or withholding information and help.
- Prospect Theory
- Kahneman and Tversky’s account of decisions under risk, used here to explain why losses weigh about twice as much as equal gains.
Resistance to Change and Readiness for Change FAQ
Why do employees resist organisational change?
The lecture groups the reasons into four families: feeling overwhelmed by the amount or timing of change, negativity about whether the change helps them or is needed, fear of the unknown when expectations are unclear, and fear of betrayal when people distrust how the change is managed or feel their psychological contract is broken.
What is the difference between active and passive resistance?
Active resistance is open: criticising, ridiculing, spreading rumours, blaming, intimidating or sabotaging. Passive resistance is hidden behind apparent cooperation: agreeing but not following through, malicious compliance, procrastination, feigning ignorance or withholding help. Passive forms are easier to miss and can do as much damage. Both deserve a response.
What is organisational readiness for change?
Drawing on Weiner, readiness is a shared psychological state combining change commitment, the members’ resolve to implement the change, and change efficacy, their belief that together they can. Valence drives commitment, while task demands, resources and situational factors such as time, politics and leadership shape efficacy.
How can readiness for change be measured?
The slides name 360-degree surveys, focus groups and executive circles using the Delphi technique. Measuring both commitment and efficacy before the change shows where to act: low commitment calls for work on the value of the change, low efficacy for training, resources and time. Repeat the measure once the change is under way.
Is resistance always a bad sign?
No. The summary slide calls resistance a positive warning sign: it often carries information about a real flaw, a fear or a gap in capability. The slides advise investigating its root cause rather than ignoring it, and remind managers that executives and managers resist change too. Treat it as data.
Assessment move
Make a one-page resistance map for a change you have seen at work or in a club: list the reactions you noticed, sort them into active, passive and ceremonial forms, and tag each with one of the four families of causes. Then score the group you have in mind on commitment and efficacy from one to five and decide which gap is larger.
Practise writing the response as three short lines, one for individuals, one for the design of the change and one for engagement. In any assessment answer, treat resistance as evidence to investigate, and name the people who resist quietly as well as the ones who object. Review the map after the first month.
Working through Resistance to Change and Readiness for Change in 21926? Sia is AskSia’s AI Management tutor — ask any 21926 Resistance to Change and Readiness for Change question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how 21926 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.