Analysis of Expected Resistance

Origins, Forms and Reasons of Resistance

Since Sheth first coined the concept of innovation resistance in his seminal paper (Sheth, 1981), innovation research has entered a new phase centering on the innovation resistance model (Ram, 1987). What is noteworthy is that resistance is not to innovation itself, but to the ‘change’ that innovation brings (Sheth, 1981). Change creates tension and anxiety, induces learning anxiety and threats to identity, means extra workload in terms of rational reasoning, and challenges the status quo (Burke, 2011; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008).

Members display various forms of defensive behaviors against changes to improve organisational competitiveness, such as overt refusal from coercive power and voice (Fleming and Spicer, 2007), escape attempts to disengage mentally from the world of work (Cohen and Taylor, 1992), cognitive distancing (Kunda, 1992), and disidentification (Fleming and Spicer, 2007). For example, Google adopted a hybrid work policy that allows them to work from home for up to four weeks per year as the 2022 pandemic ends (Corrigan, 2022). According to a survey of 1,097 Google experts conducted by the professional social network Blind, hybrid policies are not popular amongst employees (Corrigan, 2022). About two-thirds of Google employees are dissatisfied with the company's plans, and 34% of respondents said they are finding another job (Corrigan, 2022).

Factors for Rejecting, and Postponing Change Adoption

The resistance to change can be classified into postponement and rejection (Szmigin and Foxall, 1988). Sheth (1981) suggested (1) existing habits and (2) perceived risks as factors for innovation resistance. The main reason why members resist change against working methods is the incompatibility with current working methods and habits. The more changes in behaviour, the longer the process and time required for members to accept change.

In addition, value barriers and risk barriers can be factors that affect change acceptance (Joachim, Spieth and Heidenreich, 2018; Kuisma, Laukkanen and Hiltunen, 2007; Laukkanen, 2016). Unless the value of back to office is far superior to the value of telecommuting, it is not easy to lower members' resistance. On the other hand, recognizing various potential risks, such as the risk of self-efficacy and job effectiveness, members defer change acceptance until they learn more about the consequences of change, challenging the belief that office work brings work efficiency (Ram and Sheth, 1989). A survey conducted by the ADP Lab (2018) proved that 23% of virtual workers who work remotely for more than 80% of their working hours showed high engagement (Bernstein et al., 2020).

Also, the psychological bias of members toward equilibrium is another resistance factor (Ram and Sheth, 1989; Lewin, 1947). With the intrinsic desire to maintain psychological balance, changes in working style cause tension among the organisation members. In this situation, members choose resistance to change rather than ‘psychological readjustment’.

Representative approaches for resistance management include the unitarist approach, the pluralism, and the approach that views resistance as authentic grievance for positive change.

Evaluating Different Organisational Approaches to Resistance

Representative approaches for resistance management include the unitarist approach, the pluralism, and the approach that views resistance as authentic grievance for positive change.

The unitarist approach understands resistance from the perspective of managers. Organisations are viewed as an integrated and harmonious whole with a common goal (Farnham and Pimlott, 1991), and employees are loyal to the organisation. Politics does not exist in the context of resistance because it is assumed that interests are shared (Kanter, 1979). Therefore, conflict and resistance are perceived as irrational, sharing a common epistemology with the planning approach to change (Kotter, 1990; Lewin, 1947).

In contrast, the pluralism regards organisations as living organisms made up of various sub-systems, and as a loose coalition with a passing interest in the formal goals. Organisations seek to maintain some kind of dynamic equilibrium through the acceptance of competing interests and politics. Hence, conflict is recognized as indispensable, legitimate, manageable and resolvable.

The epistemology of the unitarism to resistance does not explain the resistance of 2/3 of the dissatisfied people and 34% of those considering leaving the company found in the Google case by recognizing members' resistance to change through an action-reaction relationship. On the contrary, the pluralist approach does not pay attention to resistance as a valuable and constructive tool for change management (Waddell and Sohal, 1998). Accordingly, Ford, Ford and D'Amelio (2008) suggested the value of resistance as authentic grievance for positive change and as intelligent disobedience (Chaleff, 2015).