Managing Organisational Resistance to Change

Sample Answer

Managing Organisational Resistance to Change

Organisational change is an inevitable aspect of business life, yet it remains one of the most difficult processes to manage effectively. Resistance to change is a recurring problem that can undermine transformation efforts, damage morale, and limit innovation. Drawing on Boddy’s Management: An Introduction and Clegg and Kornberger’s Managing and Organizations, this essay explores the roots of resistance to change, theoretical perspectives on management behaviour, and strategies for overcoming such resistance in contemporary organisations.

Boddy (2017) identifies change management as both a technical and human process, emphasising that resistance often arises when employees feel insecure or excluded from decision-making. He links successful change to clear communication, participative leadership, and structured planning. Conversely, Clegg and Kornberger (2012) take a more critical perspective, arguing that organisations are not merely systems of rational decision-making but dynamic arenas of power, identity, and culture. From this viewpoint, resistance is not just opposition or stubbornness but a legitimate response to how change threatens established roles and meanings.

One major cause of resistance is poor communication. When management imposes top-down changes without consultation, employees perceive change as a loss of control. Boddy suggests that leaders must create a climate of trust by openly sharing the purpose and expected outcomes of change. Lewin’s change model, unfreeze, change, refreeze, provides a useful framework here. The unfreezing stage involves preparing employees psychologically by recognising existing problems and building motivation for change. However, as Clegg and Kornberger point out, modern organisations are rarely as stable as Lewin assumed; they exist in continuous flux. Therefore, rather than “refreezing” a new state, leaders should aim to maintain flexibility and adaptive learning.

Power dynamics are also central to understanding resistance. Clegg and Kornberger’s discussion of the “circuits of power” framework helps explain how resistance is both shaped by and shapes organisational authority. Employees may resist not because they oppose the content of change but because they question who benefits from it. For instance, digital transformation may be framed as efficiency improvement but could be perceived as a strategy to downsize staff or centralise control. Recognising this, Boddy recommends involving employees in joint problem-solving, which transforms resistance into constructive dialogue. When people see that their input is valued, they are more likely to support the change effort.

Another key aspect is leadership style. Transformational leadership, as described by Boddy, motivates people through vision and inspiration rather than control and compliance. This aligns with Clegg and Kornberger’s argument that modern management should be seen as a relational practice, focused on influencing meaning and identity rather than enforcing discipline. Leaders who appeal to shared values and long-term goals can reduce resistance by helping employees see change as a collective journey rather than an imposed directive.

Resistance also has emotional and cultural dimensions. Organisations develop routines and shared assumptions that form part of their identity. According to Boddy, these cultural elements act as “social glue” that stabilises behaviour but can also make change more difficult. Clegg and Kornberger suggest that managers need to act as “sensemakers,” helping people reinterpret their work and identity in the context of new organisational realities. This means acknowledging the emotional side of change, fear, loss, uncertainty, and creating spaces for reflection and dialogue.

In practice, overcoming resistance requires a mix of planning, empathy, and participation. Techniques such as regular feedback sessions, pilot projects, and cross-functional teams can build commitment. Change agents should also recognise that some level of resistance can be healthy. It surfaces potential flaws, encourages debate, and prevents superficial compliance. As Clegg and Kornberger note, resistance can act as a balancing mechanism that ensures change initiatives remain ethical and socially responsible.