Conclusion

In conclusion, resistance does not necessarily have negative consequences for the organisation (Ford, Ford and D'Amelio, 2008). It can be a valuable resource in achieving change and can be a powerful tool for managers. Thus, managing resistance requires a dual approach that treats it as a problematic behavior (Lewin, 1946) and authentic grievance for positive change (Ford, Ford and D’Amelio, 2008).

Moreover, ‘well-crafted change’ rather than ‘change with a large impact’ is the shortcut that leads innovation to success. Action plans for this need to recognize resistance as a determinant of acceptance macroscopically, and minimize changes in the behavior of organisational members so that the changes caused by innovation can coexist with familiarity. In addition, managers make efforts to understand the psychological bias of organisational members. In the same context, when managers apply Lewin's (1946) Action Research and Field Theory (1947) to manage change, they need to explore actions that can change problem-causing behavior from the perspective of the member who is the party to the problem, not from the manager's viewpoint. Finally, when seeking action to resolve the resistance, design thinking, starting with empathy from the member's viewpoint (Carlgren, Elmquist and Rauth, 2016), can be useful for obtaining employee involvement and commitment that induce 'want to change' rather than 'will change', followed by aligning understanding between change agents and change recipients (Balogun, 2006).