Huy et al
Planned radical organizational change (PROC), which fundamentally alters the power
structure, culture, routines, and strategy of the entire organization, often appears to be the
only option available in dire circumstances
top managers (TMs)
top management team (TMT)
middle managers (MMs).
existing theory and research seem to have mainly focused on the early stages of the radical
change process and given insufficient attention to the challenges that change agents face
during its later stages—especially implementation.
there does seem to be a clear need (and opportunity) for research and theory that delve into
the implementation of radical change and illuminate the role that change agents play therein.
Radical change efforts frequently fail as a result of implementation problems, yet there is no
logical reason to believe that change agents should suddenly lose their ability to facilitate the
process as it passes into this critical stage. This paper reports a study designed to examine
this puzzle and meet the need (and opportunity) for more theory in this area.
Theories
The PROC process is generally characterized by sudden and intense change actions that
fundamentally
disturb various groups’ roles, identities, and interests that have co-existed for a long time.
While agents of
PROC can, in principle, emerge from many places in and around organizations (Battilana,
2006; Plowman
et al., 2007), TMs often appear to be the most suitable candidates for the job.
Nearly all forms of major change pose implementation challenges and require some degree
of support
and participation at lower levels
the PROC literature has tended to assume that TMs’ authority to lead change is largely
unproblematic and that they typically perform a beneficial change agent role
the PROC literature tends to de-emphasize the role of MMs and to portray them in a self-
effacing role
resistance to change is often seen as problematic to PROC. Thus, this stream of research
tends to focus
on what change agents can do to overcome resistance.
Success often depends in part on employees voluntarily cooperating with TMs to realize
radical change.
Resistance to change
There are various strategies that managers can use to reduce employee resistance to
organizational change, such as sanction, persuasion, participation, or communication,
however findings about their effectiveness remain inconclusive
research on resistance to change has tended to take (a) a favorable view of change and
change agents and (b) a dominantly individualistic and cognitive view of change resistors
, The key is to understand how the reciprocal actions of both agents and recipients work
together to foster
or inhibit resistance to change.
there is a need to distinguish resistance to the change agent from resistance to the proposed
change content
legitimacy
defines legitimacy as “the judgment that an entity is appropriate for its context.
When people believe that their superiors are entitled to their positions, they will also
generally feel
obligated to follow their orders and requests
the content of legitimacy judgments; that is, “the substantive perceptions and beliefs that
underlie the judgment
of an entity as legitimate or illegitimate
three main dimensions of content underlying active or “evaluative” legitimacy judgments:
1. instrumental, Instrumental legitimacy is present when the entity (in our study, the TM
change agent) is “perceived to facilitate the individual’s or group’s attempts to reach
self-defined or internalized goals or outcomes” such as “perceptions related to the
effectiveness, efficiency, or utilityof the entity.”
2. relational, Relational legitimacy exists when the entity is “perceived to affirm the social
identity and self-worth of individuals or social groups and to ensure that individuals or
social groups are treated with dignity and respect and receive outcomes
commensurate with their entitlements,” such as perceptions of “fairness,
benevolence, or communality.”
3. moral. Finally, “an entity is perceived as legitimate on moral grounds when it is
perceived to be consistent with the evaluator’s moral and ethical values.”
they may overlap and that an entity could be evaluated simultaneously on all three
dimensions or some subset of
the dimensions.
Legitimacy has long been recognized as a vital resource for power-holders looking to
develop and maintain authority. In its absence, would-be authorities are unable to elicit
voluntary cooperation from their subjects, and are, instead, forced to rely on costly and self-
limiting coercive tactics. In more extreme circumstances, the loss of
legitimacy can destabilize existing structures and lead to a wholesale loss of power itself.
Emotional reactions
Emotion refers to a feeling state with an identified cause or target that can be expressed
verbally
or non-verbally (Elfenbein, 2007). The question of what is an emotion and what is a
“borderline” emotion is still debated by emotion scholars through various terms such as
anger, excitement, hope, compassion, frustration, disappointment, or surprise. We use the
term “emotional reactions” to include both emotions and borderline
emotions. people typically experience emotional reactions as they evaluate the significance
of an event in relation to their own goals and concerns. As emotional reactions can impact
both thinking and behavior (Elfenbein, 2007), they could influence subsequent legitimacy
judgments and resistance to change
Planned radical organizational change (PROC), which fundamentally alters the power
structure, culture, routines, and strategy of the entire organization, often appears to be the
only option available in dire circumstances
top managers (TMs)
top management team (TMT)
middle managers (MMs).
existing theory and research seem to have mainly focused on the early stages of the radical
change process and given insufficient attention to the challenges that change agents face
during its later stages—especially implementation.
there does seem to be a clear need (and opportunity) for research and theory that delve into
the implementation of radical change and illuminate the role that change agents play therein.
Radical change efforts frequently fail as a result of implementation problems, yet there is no
logical reason to believe that change agents should suddenly lose their ability to facilitate the
process as it passes into this critical stage. This paper reports a study designed to examine
this puzzle and meet the need (and opportunity) for more theory in this area.
Theories
The PROC process is generally characterized by sudden and intense change actions that
fundamentally
disturb various groups’ roles, identities, and interests that have co-existed for a long time.
While agents of
PROC can, in principle, emerge from many places in and around organizations (Battilana,
2006; Plowman
et al., 2007), TMs often appear to be the most suitable candidates for the job.
Nearly all forms of major change pose implementation challenges and require some degree
of support
and participation at lower levels
the PROC literature has tended to assume that TMs’ authority to lead change is largely
unproblematic and that they typically perform a beneficial change agent role
the PROC literature tends to de-emphasize the role of MMs and to portray them in a self-
effacing role
resistance to change is often seen as problematic to PROC. Thus, this stream of research
tends to focus
on what change agents can do to overcome resistance.
Success often depends in part on employees voluntarily cooperating with TMs to realize
radical change.
Resistance to change
There are various strategies that managers can use to reduce employee resistance to
organizational change, such as sanction, persuasion, participation, or communication,
however findings about their effectiveness remain inconclusive
research on resistance to change has tended to take (a) a favorable view of change and
change agents and (b) a dominantly individualistic and cognitive view of change resistors
, The key is to understand how the reciprocal actions of both agents and recipients work
together to foster
or inhibit resistance to change.
there is a need to distinguish resistance to the change agent from resistance to the proposed
change content
legitimacy
defines legitimacy as “the judgment that an entity is appropriate for its context.
When people believe that their superiors are entitled to their positions, they will also
generally feel
obligated to follow their orders and requests
the content of legitimacy judgments; that is, “the substantive perceptions and beliefs that
underlie the judgment
of an entity as legitimate or illegitimate
three main dimensions of content underlying active or “evaluative” legitimacy judgments:
1. instrumental, Instrumental legitimacy is present when the entity (in our study, the TM
change agent) is “perceived to facilitate the individual’s or group’s attempts to reach
self-defined or internalized goals or outcomes” such as “perceptions related to the
effectiveness, efficiency, or utilityof the entity.”
2. relational, Relational legitimacy exists when the entity is “perceived to affirm the social
identity and self-worth of individuals or social groups and to ensure that individuals or
social groups are treated with dignity and respect and receive outcomes
commensurate with their entitlements,” such as perceptions of “fairness,
benevolence, or communality.”
3. moral. Finally, “an entity is perceived as legitimate on moral grounds when it is
perceived to be consistent with the evaluator’s moral and ethical values.”
they may overlap and that an entity could be evaluated simultaneously on all three
dimensions or some subset of
the dimensions.
Legitimacy has long been recognized as a vital resource for power-holders looking to
develop and maintain authority. In its absence, would-be authorities are unable to elicit
voluntary cooperation from their subjects, and are, instead, forced to rely on costly and self-
limiting coercive tactics. In more extreme circumstances, the loss of
legitimacy can destabilize existing structures and lead to a wholesale loss of power itself.
Emotional reactions
Emotion refers to a feeling state with an identified cause or target that can be expressed
verbally
or non-verbally (Elfenbein, 2007). The question of what is an emotion and what is a
“borderline” emotion is still debated by emotion scholars through various terms such as
anger, excitement, hope, compassion, frustration, disappointment, or surprise. We use the
term “emotional reactions” to include both emotions and borderline
emotions. people typically experience emotional reactions as they evaluate the significance
of an event in relation to their own goals and concerns. As emotional reactions can impact
both thinking and behavior (Elfenbein, 2007), they could influence subsequent legitimacy
judgments and resistance to change
