Skip to main content
Log in

Resistance to change—A monitor of new technology

  • Papers
  • Published:
Systems practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines the credibility of the deficit model of resistance to change in a case study on office automation. A functional analysis of resistance to change is conducted using narrative interviews and documentary analysis. Resistance to change is shown to occur and to affect the implementation process: resistance is identified as a useful source of information, directing the attention of the change agency to improve hardware, software, and the organization. User attitudes were found to change: global skepticism developed into critical acceptance of the office system. The decision-making criteria changed during the 3-year period of the case study. More criteria were used, with user-friendliness becoming more prominent in the decision criteria. The case highlights some limitations of Lewinian field theory in studying resistance to change. Systems theory may provide a more useful framework, organized around the principle that resistance to change is a functional selfmonitoring subsystem guiding the internal adjustment of the changing organization and thus securing effectiveness. This approach may have wider implications for the analysis of social change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bauer, M. (1986).Widerstand gegen Neue Technologien, Eine Fallstudie zur Bueroautomation in einem Kleinbetrieb, Skizzen zu einer handlungspsychologischen Konzeption von “Widerstand gegen Veraenderung,” Lizentiat Thesis, Psychological Institute of the University of Berne, April, NCR Foundation, Zurich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechmann, G., Gloede, F., and Paschen, H. (1988). Fruehwarnung vor technikbedingten Gefahren. In Bungard, W., and Lenk, H. (eds.)Technikbewertung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehnisch, W. (1979).Personale Widerstaende bei der Durchsetzung von Innovationen, Poeschel, Stuttgart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brotherton, C. (1988). Editorial: Technological change and innovation-setting the agenda for occupational psychology.J. Occupat. Psychol. 61, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coch, L., and French, J. R. P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change.Hum. Relat. 1, 512–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranach, M. V., and Harre, R. (eds.) (1982).The Analysis of Action. Recent Theoretical and Empirical Advances, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranach, M. V., and Ochsenbein, G. (1985). Self-monitoring systems: Their function in human information processing and action. A paper given at Karl-Marx University, Leipzig, Dec. 1984. [Schweiz. Z. Psychol. 44, 221–235, 1985 (in German).]

  • Crozier, M., and Friedberg, E. (1979).Macht und Organisation. Die Zwaenge des kollektiven Handelns, Athenaeum, Koenigstein.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farr, R. M., and Moscovici, S. (eds.) (1984).Social Representations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, J. D. (1944). Experimental studies of personal pressure and resistance.J. Gen. Psychol. 30, 23–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerl, K. (1975).Analyse, Erfassung und Handhabung von Anpassungswiderstaenden beim organisationalen Wandel, Dissertation, Universitaet Muenchen, Muenchen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greif, S. (1983).Konzepte der Organisationspsychologie. Eine Einfitehrung in grundlegende theoretische Ansaetze, Huber, Bern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greif, S., Holling, H., and Nicholson, N. (eds.) (1989).Arbeits-und Organisationspsychologie, Psychologie Verlags Union, Muenchen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagerstrand, T. (1967).Innovation Diffusion as a Spatial Process, Chicago University Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himmelweit, H. T. (1990). Societal psychology: Implications and scope. In Himmelveit, H. T., and Gaskell, G. (eds.),Societal Psychology, Sage, Newbury Park.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschheim, R. A., and Newman, M. (1988). Information systems and user resistance. Theory and practice.Comput. J. 31, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, R. L. (1984). Conclusion: Critical themes in the study of change. In Goodman, P. S. (ed.),Change in Organizations. New Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp. 409–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, D. (1969). Some notes on the dynamics of resistance to change. The defender role. In Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., and Chin, R. (eds.),The Planning of Change, 2nd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. A. (1984). Why supervisors resist employee involvement.Harvard Bus. Rev. 62, 87–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. L. (1954). How to overcome resistance to change.Harvard Bus. Rev. 32, 49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1936).Principles of Topological Psychology, McGraw-Hill, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics II.,Hum. Relat. 1, 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • London, I. D. (1944). Psychologists' misuse of the auxiliary concepts of physics and mathematics.Psychol. Rev. 51, 266–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. (1984).Soziale Systeme, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahajan, V., and Peterson, R. A. (1985).Models for Innovation Diffusion, Sage University Papers, Beverly Hills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, politics, and MIS implementation.Commun. ACM 26(8), 430–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (1983).Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse, Grundlagen und Techniken, Beltz, Basel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mugny, G. (1982).The Power of Minorities, Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Northcott, J., Fogerty, M., and Trevor, M. (1985).Chips and Jobs: Acceptance of New Technology at Work, Policy Studies Institute, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, W. B., and Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models.Psychol. Bull. 100(3), 349–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuetze, F. (1977).Die Technik des narrativen Interviews in Interaktionsfeldstudien, Manuscript, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spinas, P., Troy, N., and Ulich, E. (1983).Leitfaden zur Einfuehrung und Gestaltung von Arbeit mit Bildschirmsystemen, Verlag Industrielle OrganisationZurich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staw, B. M. (1982). Counterforces to change. In Goodman, P. S. (ed.),Change in Organizations. New Perspectives on Theory, Research and Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • TenHorn, L. A. (1989). What has happened to “resistance to change”? The introduction of automation. Paper presented at 4th European Conference of Psychology of Work and Organisation. Cambridge, Apr. 1989.

  • Watson, G. (1969). Resistance to change. In Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., and Chin, R. (eds.),The Planning of Change, 2nd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, A. (1987). Social representations and the world of science.J. Theory Soc. Behav. 17 (4), 433–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willcocks, L., and Mason, D. (1987).Computerising Work. People, Systems Design and Workplace Relations, Paradigm, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander, A. (1961). Resistance to change-its analysis and prevention. In Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., and Chin, R. (eds.),The Planning of Change, 1st ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 543–548.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bauer, M. Resistance to change—A monitor of new technology. Systems Practice 4, 181–196 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059564

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059564

Key words

Navigation