Resistance to Change: A Psychoanalytic Critique of Argyris and Schon's Contributions to Organization Theory and Intervention

Diamond, Michael A.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1986.tb00436.x

Cited by 78 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The question is: "How one can use the rich data on resistance to change faculty attitudes?" Several authors propose to "re-think" resistance to change in order to help employees go through the change process in an organization (Diamond, 1986;Piderit, 2000;Oreg, 2006). The factors of resistance vary from one research study to another, as well as the recommendations for improving this situation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Change Resistance Theory (Diamond, 1986;Piderit, 2000;Oreg, 2006) has been lately receiving a lot of attention in scholarly literature. Several authors propose to "rethink" resistance to change in order to help employees going through the change process in an organization (Diamond, 1986;Piderit, 2000;Oreg, 2006).…”

Section: The Change Resistance Theory and Control Theory In Relation mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several authors propose to "rethink" resistance to change in order to help employees going through the change process in an organization (Diamond, 1986;Piderit, 2000;Oreg, 2006). The theory of resistance to change states that resistance should be viewed as a multidimensional (negative) attitude towards change and it consists of three interconnected elements: cognitive, affective, and behavioral/intentional components (Piderit, 2000;Oreg, 2006).…”

Section: The Change Resistance Theory and Control Theory In Relation mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 issue 2, April-June 2013, pp. 151-163 (1984, Rossmans Adult Learning Inventory (Rossman & Rossman, 2011), Change Resistance Theory (Diamond, 1986;Piderit, 2000;Oreg, 2006) and Ramsden's (1998) Theory of Leadership and Theory of Control, and Argyris and Schön's (1992) Theory of Action.…”

Section: ) Kolb's Learning Style Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

From resistance to acceptance and use of technology in academia

Khalil

2013

Open Praxis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phenomenon of faculty's resistance to use technology in higher education is the focus of this research as a secondary reading of the existing relevant research with the purpose of analyzing factors of resistance and finding the solutions. This paper is an excerpt from a Doctoral dissertation and is focused on the causes of resistance and finding possible solutions to re-think resistance (Matrosova Khalil, 2011, 2012. It is hoped that the results of this study will contribute to the understanding of resistance factors, add to the development of the theoretical basis of re-thinking resistance, and to create a path for redirecting away from psychological defensive behavior expressed by faculty. This last aspect is characterized as part of emotional and behavioral resistance, which this research hopes to transform from a negative to a positive attitude towards change. Keywords MethodologyThe factors of faculty resistance to technology in academia will be investigated in this qualitative study by reviewing (as a secondary reading) and analyzing already existing research, and combining the many survey results of the previous research in one new analysis. This study is seen as an identification of the process of change from resistance to learning and accepting technology. This new analysis and its recommendations would be helpful for faculty and leadership in recognizing the factors that cause resistance in their institutions, thereby being able to create a path for overcoming the problem.The purpose of this investigative qualitative study is to analyze the phenomenon of faculty resistance to technology in academia and to add to the development of the theoretical basis for re-thinking this resistance. Organizational change is needed to overcome the factors of faculty resistance in using technology. Although a majority of research is done on the factors of faculty resistance to technology and resistance to change in academia, the fact of the resistance remains. The question is: "How one can use the rich data on resistance to change faculty attitudes?" Several authors propose to "re-think" resistance to change in order to help employees go through the change process in an organization (Diamond, 1986;Piderit, 2000;Oreg, 2006). The factors of resistance vary from one research study to another, as well as the recommendations for improving this situation. There is a need to organize these factors so the picture of faculty resistance to technology can be reveal in all its details. To treat the problem one should identify its causes. The categorization of the many causes of resistance should be presented as one clear document, serving as a "blue print" for administration and leadership in institutions of higher education in order to identify

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Change Resistance Theory and Control Theory In Relation mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Change Resistance Theory and Control Theory In Relation mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: ) Kolb's Learning Style Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

From resistance to acceptance and use of technology in academia

Khalil

2013

Open Praxis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, they came to realize that overcoming organizational defensive routines is not as easy as they had at first thought. Diamond (1986) argues that both of these scholars tried to find an answer to these defenses in the cognitive potential of individuals, but that any answer to the psychological/emotional regression needs to be found in a psychodynamics paradigm. Vince (2001Vince ( , 2002, researching in psychodynamics, observed that a relationship of interdependence exists between an organization's management and employees, in a relatedness, which "implies a range of emotional levels of connection across the boundaries of person, role and organization, which emphasize the relational nature of organizing" (Vince 2001(Vince , pp.…”

Section: Olmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Identity: An Ambiguous Concept in Practical Terms

Mujib

2017

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Albert and Whetten defined organizational identity (OI) as the central, distinctive and enduring characteristics of an organization. Scholars found OI to be a difficult construct to apply to organizations and, over time, they defined it from functionalist, social constructionist, postmodernist and psychodynamic perspectives. All of these perspectives made great theoretical contributions to the field, but they were largely unable to integrate practice and theory in a way that could benefit organizations. Hatch and Schultz's work is exceptional in this regard: they provided a theory that has the promise of practical implications for organizations in regard to organizational continuity. They perceived organizational continuity as existing in the balanced/responsible behavior of an organization's members, among themselves and with key external stakeholders. They provided an effective model in this regard, but they overlooked how individuals' political interests overshadow balanced behavior. Politics that arise as a result of individuals' identity are generally considered to be psychological in origin and link OI to organizational learning (OL) as a co-evolving process. The present research hence operationalizes Hatch and Schultz's model by reference to a Winnicottian framework to understand how OI is socially constructed and psychologically understood in the political interests of the management and employees, among themselves and with key external stakeholders. In doing so it explores the political implications of OI for OL, as perceived in an organization's continuity. The context of the research is the Pakistani police.

show abstract

Individual Readiness for Organizational Change

Choi¹,

Ruona²

2013

The Wiley‐Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Leadership, Change, and Organizational Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a qualitative review of two concepts: change readiness and resistance to change. We review their use, clarify their conceptual underpinnings, and address the assumption of them being the opposite poles of the same continuum. We juxtapose the two concepts and analyze their dimensions which commonly represent a source of ambiguity about their meaning, review their evolution, and compare them to similar concepts. We argue that resistance to change addresses two important aspects: resistance as behavior and resistance as attitude. We argue that because resistance to change and change readiness share attitudinal roots, they should be looked at in conjunction -not on a bipolar continuum but as coexisting orthogonal dimensions -to grasp the full complexity of change-related attitudes. We discuss implications and offer guidance for future research.

show abstract

Resistance to Change: A Psychoanalytic Critique of Argyris and Schon's Contributions to Organization Theory and Intervention

Cited by 78 publications

References 11 publications

From resistance to acceptance and use of technology in academia

From resistance to acceptance and use of technology in academia

Organizational Identity: An Ambiguous Concept in Practical Terms

Individual Readiness for Organizational Change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About