Resistance to organizational change: the role of cognitive and affective processes

Abstract

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 405387 [] For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

Kamu Sektöründe Süreç Odakli Örgütsel Deği̇şi̇mi̇n Hi̇zmet Kali̇tesi̇ Ve İş Tatmi̇ni̇ Üzeri̇ne Etki̇leri̇

“…Değişim çoğunlukla bilinenden bilinmeyene bir geçiş olduğu için direnç söz konusu olması normaldir (Bovey ve Hede, 2001). Değişime direnç, statükonun değişmesi durumuna karşı, aynı koşulların korunmasına hizmet eden davranışlar olarak tanımlanabilir (Zatman ve Duncan, 1977:63, akt.…”

Looking at Organizational Change Through the Construction and Reconstruction of the Underpinning Values of the Organization Through Interactions Among Stakeholders

“…A managerial trend is apparent in the literature on episodic organizational change (Weick & Quinn, 1999), leading towards the implementation of change processes focused on tangible aspects, such as strategies, structures, processes and technologies (Pascale et al, 2000), with little attention devoted to the human element (Bovey & Hede, 2001;Oswick, Grant, Michelson, & Wailes, 2005;Vince & Broussine, 1996). Oswick et al (2005), when discussing the future direction for studies of organizational change, prompted by an upsurge in interest in studying the intangible aspects of organizations, suggest that change management should consist of meanings management.…”

“…However, most planned change processes fail to attain the desired success (Bovey & Hede, 2001;Heracleous, 2002;Hernandes & Caldas, 2001;Pascale, Millemann, & Gioia, 2000;Tsoukas & Chia, 2002), in parallel with difficulties encountered by organizations in identifying the factors that pave the way for effective organizational change (Pascale et al, 2000). A managerial trend is apparent in the literature on episodic organizational change (Weick & Quinn, 1999), leading towards the implementation of change processes focused on tangible aspects, such as strategies, structures, processes and technologies (Pascale et al, 2000), with little attention devoted to the human element (Bovey & Hede, 2001;Oswick, Grant, Michelson, & Wailes, 2005;Vince & Broussine, 1996).…”

“…Through the functionalist approach, studies of organizational change attempt to offer prescriptions and models through which leaders can administer change processes, which may be justified by the prevailing interest in explaining organizational change through the technical and tangible aspects of organizations, as discussed by Vince and Broussine (1996) and Bovey and Hede (2001). However, Oswick et al (2005) discuss whether the prevailing interest in studying change through these aspects between the 1950s and the 1970s, when mass production, complex paperwork, standardization and control were the goals in formal organizations (Orlikowski, 1996), has been outstripped by rising interest in intangible phenomena (organizational learning, knowledge management, narrative methods and issues related to image and identity), resulting in studies guided by non-positivist paradigms.…”

The Limits of Leadership

“…Such a view upon leadership is especially found in theories on transformational leadership. In this view, leaders accomplish organizational change by taking care of the process as in the process-based model of leadership, which draws upon the procedural jus-tice literature to hypothesize that leaders motivate their followers to accept change by exercising their authority via fair procedures (Tyler and Cremer 2005); by overcoming organizational resistance to change (Bovey and Hede 2001); by making the organization ready for change, (Holt et al 2007); by changing the organizational culture (Schein 1985); by learning from organizational change in other organizations, cf. Sevón (1996), who argued that every theory of organizational change must take into account the fact that leaders of organizations watch one another and adopt what they perceive as successful strategies for growth and organizational structure (60-61); and by achieving results (Müller and Turner 2007).…”