Literature Review – Barriers to Success in Organizational Change
Lisa Viker
Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota
Literature Review
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract …………………………………………………………………………….. 3
What is Organizational Change ……………………………………………………… 4
Organizational Life Cycle: Impact on Change …………………………………..….. 5
Organizational Design: Impact on Organizational Change...…………………………. 6
Organizational Environment: Impact on Organizational Change …………………….. 7
Resistance to Change: ……………………………………………………………….. 8
Overcoming Barriers to Successful Organizational Change. ………………………… 12
Summary…………………………………………………………………………….. 16
References ……………………………………………………………………………17
Literature Review
3
ABSTRACT:
Organizations are in continuous motion on a journey through its organizational life cycle.
This life cycle perpetuates a continuous need for change to create an atmosphere favorable to
change acceptance within all hierarchical levels of the organization... Because life is not static
but is dynamic there is a constant need for creating change. The successful adaptation to change
can be a determining factor for the longevity of the organization.
Change, however, is difficult and there are many barriers to successful change. The
barriers to successful implementation of change can be impacted by many factors, such as:
Organizational life-cycle, intention for change, organizational design, organizational
environment and culture, conflicting commitments, organizational resources, and exterior forces.
This paper will begin with a discussion regarding organizational change; and then move
to a review of change leadership. This paper will also address various barriers to successful
implementation of change within an organization, including the most commonly identified
changes faced by change leaders; and, finally, the varying approaches for the change leader to
overcome these barriers and successfully enact change within an organizational structure.
Literature Review
4
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Change is a process within all organizational systems. For example, one can find change
occurring within social movements, political systems, and global economies, amongst others.
This paper will focus on theories regarding organizational change and the barriers to success. It
will conclude with a summary of the solutions to overcome the barriers and successfully enact
organizational change within for-profit corporations. Although some of the theories hold true
regardless of the systemic analysis of successful change theory, the perspective of the for-profit
organization has some unique aspects of consideration due to the competitive nature within the
organization for resources, structured hierarchy, individual competing commitments, and the
impact of external influences of political, social, economic and environmental systems on the
success of change.
The most concise definition within the literature reviewed was Jones (2013) whom
defined organizational change as “the process by which organizations redesign their structures
and cultures to move from their present state to some desired future state to increase their
effectiveness” (p. 10). This definition is centered on intentional design for a specific redesign for
a specific result. Jones (2013), suggests change in organizations differentiates between
“evolutionary change [as] gradual, incremental, and narrowly focused…. [and] Revolutionary
change [as] rapid, dramatic, and broadly focused” (p. 281).
There is little other discussion about the specific definition of organizational change as a
process as did Jones (2013); but rather, the discussion is focused on the theory of the process of
leading organizational change. For example, Fullan (2011) posits “seven key interrelated ideas
and competencies that are essential for leading change through practice and experience:
Literature Review
5
cultivating deliberateive practice, being resolute, motivating others through linking to their
realities, fostering collaboration, learning confidently, knowing your impact, and sustaining your
learning from practice” (p. 5). Similarly Woodman (2014) discusses the theory of change in his
definition: “change process theory attempts to explain the dynamics of organizational change
process by identifying the manipulated variables in the change effort, the intended outcomes of
the change program,and the relationships between manipulated and outcome variables, including
mediators—the mechanisms through which the changes are effected” (p.466).
It is much the same throughout the change leadership scholarly writing, the definition is
more related to the process of change rather than the definition of change itself. Since the
definition of change written by Jones (2013) as stated above reflects change as a plan, verses
change as an unexpected process within an organization, this paper will focus on barriers to
successful change with regard to planned organizational change.
ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE CYCLES
The context in which change occurs will impact the change. For example there are many
contexts within an organization that are forces for change as well as resistance to change (Jones,
2013, p. 275). A specific and vital contextual factor for both the force and resistance for change
is dependent on the life-cycle in which the organization exists at the time of the change.
Organizational life-cycle impacts the perspective of the individuals effecting change, and the
experience of the individuals creating the change varies as the organizational life-cycle ages
(Cameron & Whetten, 1984). Furthermore, the amount of organizational change is directly
related at some level to the development in the organizations life-cycle. For example, if an
organization is at the first stage of development of “creativity and entrepreneurship” (Cameron &
Literature Review
6
Whetten, 1984) there are more risks taken in change measures because of the early stage of
development. According to Su, Baird, & Schoch (2015) the early stage of development is called
“the birth stage” (p. 43). The discussion that Baird & Schoch (2015) focuses on the moderating
effect of understanding the organizational life cycle in which the organization exists. This
awareness allows an understanding of the culture and environment that will impact the attitudes
that reflect decision making and risk taking factors during continuous change. Understanding
that will create an opportunity for greater success for the change leader.
There is room for further research on this topic of organizational life-cycle on the impact
of barriers to effective organizational change. The research ends at the effectiveness of the
organization in a life-cycle with a consideration of change leadership within this context. In fact,
as Cameron & Whetten (1984) posit “we therefore expect the salience attached to the
organization’s hierarchical levels by the organization’s members will shift over life-cycle
stages…in sum it is expected that, as organizations mature, changes will occur in perceptions of
organizational effectiveness in domains of activity and hierarchical levels” (p. 528).
ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN
The organizational design makes an impact on the appropriate change process to be
chosen during times of identified change. According to Jones (2013) “Organizational design is
about how and why various means are chosen. An organization’s behavior is the result of its
design and the principles behind its operation” (p. 9). Understanding the design of the
organization impacts the views of those within the organization and how the individuals respond
to necessary change is an essential awareness for successful change processes.
Literature Review
7
This awareness of organizational design can be related to Ray, Baker, & Plowman (2011)
mindfulness can create an avenue for developing a positive organizational attitude. Jones (2013)
posits “When attitudes are difficult to change because they have developed over a long period of
time, the only way to resolve a conflict may be to change the people involved” (p. 400).
However, if the organizational leadership can identify the barrier to successful change as an
organizational design issue it can be assessed and then the method for enacting change can be
adjusted to create a successful opportunity for necessary change. The key to this awareness is
organizational mindfulness. Ray, Baker, & Plowman (2011) posits:
“The notion of organizational mindfulness has emerged in the organizational science
literature in regard to automatic and nonautomatic information and processing
(Sandelands & Stablein, 1987; Leventhal & Rerup, 2006) and in studies of highreliability organizations (Weick & Roberts, 1993; & Weick, et al, 1999, Weick &
Sutcliffe, 2001). Weick, et al; 1999, observed that the high-reliability organizations
avoid mistakes because of a capability they call mindfulness” (p. 189).
They continue later to define organizational mindfulness: “means being attentive to the context
and at the same time being able to respond to unanticipated cues or signals from one’s context
(Leventhal & Rerup, 2006)” (p. 193).
Essentially the literature regarding organizational design leverages the awareness of the
organizational design itself and the impact of that on individual behaviors. To enact successful
change, change leaders must be aware of the impact that the organization itself has on the
individuals who must create the change.
ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENT
Understanding the purpose of the organization allows for insight in how to continue to
grow and change increasing value of purpose. Jones (2013) defines the organization as “a tool
people use to coordinate their actions to obtain something they desire or value” (p. 2). The
Literature Review
8
environment within an organization is defined by Jones (2013) as “the set of forces and
conditions that operate beyond an organization’s boundaries but affect its ability to acquire and
use resources to create value” (p. 3).
Organizations create value through the process of inputs and outputs; and at the
“conversion stage create value by using their…skills to organize… those inputs and outputs”
(Jones, 2013, p. 4). There are many different environmental factors that organizational
leadership faces when trying to succeed in meeting their business strategic goals, and change is a
necessary part of that success. The environment in which an organization works can impact the
direction, design and ability to enact change successfully. There are varying types of change that
both influence the environment and that are influenced by the environment. Resistance to
organizational change can transform the decision making, innovation and creativity, and
managing conflict within the organization, creating a barrier to success of reaching the business
strategic goals. Therefore organizations and change leaders have to identify the possibilities for
enacting successful change.
There are many scholarly articles overcoming resistance to change, but in this paper we
will take an opportunity to discuss the value perspective of resistance to change as identified by
Pederit (2000). Understanding that resistance to change can offer value and creative problem
solving opportunities can add to the successful change opportunities.
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Resistance to change can originate at all levels of an organization. According to Jones
(2013) the organization will find several impediments to necessary change. Necessary change is
required to meet the changing environmental factors within which the organization operates to
Literature Review
9
maintain the success of the organization. The resistance to change can be in the organization as a
whole, in groups within the organization and at the individual level of the organization. Lewin’s
1947 Force-Field theory of change was his theory for a process to overcome the resistance to
change from the top down, by either increasing the forces for change or reducing the resistance
to change and then making that change permanent. His theory directly lies in the ability of the
managers within an organization to analyze and overcome the behavioral resistance to change
and determine the direction to apply or reduce the force. Lewin’s theory to enact change is a
three-step process: “unfreeze the organization from its present state; make the desired type of
change; and, refreeze the organization in a new desired state” (Jones, 2013, p. 293).
Other scholars have identified the resistance to change can be a result of many factors
seemingly indicating that Lewin’s 1947 theory is a simplified understanding of organizational
resistance to change through applying the right force to successfully make the change permanent.
(Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 1999 & Jones, 2013). In fact, Armenakis, Harris, & Field (1999)
state “The issues of permanence and stability are central to Lewin’s (1947) unfreezing-movingrefreezing metaphor. From this metaphorical perspective…As organizations are constantly
undergoing change or experiencing flux, talking about literal permanence to describe
institutionalization is unrealistic” (p. 99).
In contrast to Lewin, Piderit (2000) addresses the theory that resistance to change itself
can be an indicator of the value or intention of the planned change. She posits “A review of past
empirical research reveals three different emphases on conceptualizations of resistance; as a
cognitive state, as an emotional state, and as a behavior. Although these conceptualizations
overlap somewhat, they diverge in important ways” (Piderit, 2000, p. 785). Understanding the
origin of the resistance can add value and understanding to the resistance itself. As Piderit
Literature Review
10
(2000) suggests regarding managers understanding of resistance “Even if they only see
employees who oppose change as short sighted, managers are tempted by the language of
resistance to treat their subordinates as obstacles. Thus, the label of resistance can be used to
dismiss potentially valid employee concerns about proposed change” (p. 784).
Furthermore, Lewin’s theory was based on an exclusive remedy of top-down change,
Piderit (2000) identifies this exact topic as a necessary and needy direction of study. Although
Piderit’s article values the response to the resistance to change, it does not appear to address the
conceptualizations of resistance for the managers charged with enacting the change. It is her
suggestion that we do a better job at addressing the top down and bottom up understanding of
resistance to change to offer all employees insight into the change process. She posits: “these
ideas are not all new to the field, but earlier admonitions about the benefits of employee input
and drawbacks of dismissing subordinates’ responses to change were not consistently brought to
center stage in organizational studies. If we can do better, we will be able to offer guidance to all
employees involved in change processes and not just to change agents with official authority” (p.
792).
In comparison, but in expansion to the top-down leadership theories, Yon (2014) offers
the potential toward a more successful outcome, if the followers are empowered by their leaders
to voice the concerns of change, use their creativity for change process, and feel they are
engaged in the actual change process. Yon, et al (2014 ) describes the “Existing research
indicates that employees that work for empowering leaders are more likely to feel
encouraged…we expect that empowering leadership will moderate the potential negative effects
of employees’ resistance to change on creativity”(p. 926). Involving the employees in the
change process is a well discussed and valued topic in research today. The topic is a concern for
Literature Review
11
all organizations and all departments within the organization. Burchell (2011) addresses the
topic related to change within the information technologies industry by indicating involving
employees is a way to minimize the resistance to change (p. 20). However, in contrast he does
not indicate a buy-in to any particular methodology, and in fact the tone of the article indicates
that he subscribes more to the ideas that change agents must control the attitude of resistance in
the change.
Organizational resistance to change can be found at the organizational, group and
individual levels. There are several factors that are responsible for resistance to change, some of
those are identified by Jones and include “power and conflict, differences in functional
orientation, mechanistic structure, and organizational culture…group norms, group cohesiveness,
and groupthink…uncertainty and insecurity, selective perception and retention…” (Jones, 2013,
p. 300). With the additional mindfulness of the conceptulizations of resistance to change
identified by Piderit (2000) change agents can utilize their awareness to address the ambivalent
attitude to change and create an atmosphere for enacting successful organizational change.
Understanding organizational change is an intricate part of the success of organizational
life cycles and the longevity of the organization. In turn, understanding the organizational lifecycle creates an awareness of the constant flux of necessary change within an organization. This
knowledge represents the importance of understanding barriers to successful change
management. As Jones (2013) describes; ”Developing and managing a plan for change are vital
to an organization’s success” (p. 299). Consciousness of the need for change can increase the
opportunity for successful change by overcoming the barriers to the change process. In addition,
realization that change is occurring as a result of the environments within which the organization
Literature Review
12
exists allows the leadership to assess the organizational needs, design the plan for change to meet
the strategic goals, and implement the change plan to adjust to the forced changes.
This paper will address some specific identified barriers to success and the importance of the
holistic approach to understanding organizational change.
OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SUCCESSFUL CHANGE
There are many scholars who have identified significant barriers to successful
organizational change. This paper assesses various identified barriers to change and compares
them in the light of Piderit’s (2000) theory of three conceptualizations of resistance--cognitive,
emotional and behavioral-- evaluating them with the concepts and value of top down and bottom
up change.
Because change is a dynamic process within an organization, the response to the need for
change must begin at the assessment of the organization and an understanding of why it is
experiencing change or needs to experience change. This assessment is essential to the success
of the organizations strategic development for solving the right problem. Spradlin, (2012)
addresses the importance for assessing the organizational need prior to enacting change, he
postulates: “…companies often don’t spend enough time and resources on defining the problems
they’re trying to crack and establishing their importance to the organization. The results are
missed opportunities, wasted resources, and innitatives that are out of sync with the strategy” (p.
87). The misdirection of a change innitiative can have lasting effects on the change culture of
an organization creating a cynical attitude or burnout for change efforts.
In contrast to Spradlin’s (2012) theory of the need for change to begin at the thorough
assessment of the strategic needs of the organization, Barton & Ambrosini (2013) assert that the
Literature Review
13
failure begins at the strategic commitment of the middle managers to the change innitiative
resulting in “organizational change cynicism (OCC)” (p. 721, this stage could be considered at
the implementation stage of a change action (Jick, 1991 & Jones, 2013). Barton & Amrosini’s
2013 theory of failure of middle managers to commit to the change strategy could be affected by
other circumstances outside of the implementation stage was not considered in their study. The
failure of middle managers to commit to change does not begin with their lack of commitment it
begins with appropriate assessment of the organization and the cause for the change innitiatives
as Spradlin (2012) discusses.
Furthermore, the employee subjective understanding of change can impact on the success
of the change action, as Jick (1991) posits: “People get stuck for two basic – and obvious—
reasons: “change” is not some monolithic event that has neat and tidy beginnings and ends; and
peoples subjective experiences of change vary considerably as a result of individual
circumstances” (p. 48). Although Barton & Ambrosini (2013) have a valid point of the
importance of the strategic commitment of the middle managers in the success of the change
innitiative at the implementation stage, other scholarly research asserts that understanding
change resistance is not this simple. As identified by Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector (1990) “The
senior exectuive that learns to respect, recognize and deal fairly with the most influencial
managers will gain trusted allies—and improve the odds of realizing a complex but necessary
organizational change” (p. 31) .
In the study regarding employee burnout during episodic changes completed by
Chatzinikou & Bellou (2015) they address their research on the impact of change on personal
employee job satisfaction and burnout. Asserting that because change is the only constant in
companies today the change action itself can cause cynicism and burnout amongst its employees.
Literature Review
14
This is a response to an episodic change action and it does not specifically address the impact on
the successful outcome of the change itself, it is only briefly mentioned that there is a
relationship:
“Since burnout limits both employee’s ability and willingness to adjust and contribute
(Appelbaum, Candell, Yortis, Proper, and Jobin, 2000), putting the change initiative at
risk, it is vital for leaders and agents of change to find ways to prevent or at least reduce
it. Apparently, training and development can be helpful towards this direction”
(Chatzinikou & Bellou, 2015, p. 8).
In understanding the context of the barriers to change, and centering this understanding within
Piderit’s (2000) conceptualizations of resistance, one can add perspective to the barriers to
successful change. For example, understanding the emotional conceptualization of resistance
response relative to employee burnout and the subsequent impact on the successful
implementation of the business strategy, a company can prepare and confront this issue to avoid
the negative impact on the resistance to organizational change.
A deeper understanding of organizational cognitive resistance amongst change agents
will allow an open structure for enacting successful change. “A cognitive structure is the system
of interrelated beliefs, preferences, expectations, and values that a person uses to define problems
and events” (Jones, 2013, p. 349). Identifying the cognitive conceptualization of resistance
offers insight into the interpersonal relationship required to properly manage employees through
a change initiative (Piderit, 2000).
Awareness of the organizational atmosphere for change requires emotional intelligence.
“Emotional intelligence refers to the capacity for recognizing our own feelings and those of
others, for motivating ourselves, and for managing emotions well in ourselves and in our
relationships” (Goleman, 1998, p. 317). Scholars have recognized methods for identifying good
change agents to improve the ability to predict and enact necessary strategic change. A repetitive
Literature Review
15
theme for identifying the most effective change agents is detecting those managers with
emotional intelligence. (Beer, Eisenstat, & Spector, 1990 & Goleman, 1998)
Context of organizational change, including environmental, life cycle, and cultural, can create an
element for resistance to change. For example with regard to environmental context and its
impact on change action, Jones (2013) posits:
“Obviously the combination of an uncertain, changing environment with organizational
inertia makes it difficult for managers to anticipate the need for change. It also hampers
and limits their ability to adopt new strategies and structures that will allow an
organization to adapt to the changing environment” (p. 325).
Creating a culture of learning and innovation can improve the opportunity for enacting
successful organizational change actions. An adaptive culture that encourages learning,
innovation and risk taking. Jones (2013) states that adaptive cultures “are more likely to survive
in a changing environment and should have higher performance than organizations with inert
cultures” (p. 346). Thus, developing the adaptive and learning culture allows for an organization
to start with a fertile environment for successful change. In order to reshape the perspective of
the organization, group or individual, a culture of learning should be created. “The bottom line
is that your best source of learning is day-to-day practice because it is only experience that can
engage and reshape the brain” (Fullan, 2011, p. 5).
There are many identified sources of resistance to change. Understanding the context
within which the change occurs, the organizational assessment which identifies the change
objective and the action plan for implementation of the change effort, will help to minimize the
change. Also, creating the positive elements within the organizational environment and culture
may avoid the common resistance to change factors. Hon, Bloom, & Crant (2014)
Literature Review
16
offer a clearer understanding of the importance of creativity, risk taking, and learning in
successfully driving change: “When environmental cues signal that change is desired, creativity
is encouraged, and failures experienced in pursuit of both are acceptable, employees will be more
willing and capable of enacting change…” (Hon, Bloom, & Crant, 2014, p. 922). Arguably this
also supports the idea that the cause for change must be assessed properly and the environment
that has created the change should be considered.
SUMMARY
There is room for growth in the study of organizational change theory. Change is a
dynamic factor for all organizations, though the causes requiring the change may vary, the
success of enacting the change is essential to the survival and success of each organization. This
paper has described the various theories for causes of resistance and methodologies for
overcoming the resistance factors to change initiatives. Jones (2013) has offered a very thorough
discussion on organizational theory, the evolution of change theory and the importance of
organizational design to create a positive atmosphere for successful change. The historical
theories such as Lewin’s (1947) Theory gave a perspective from which to branch out and begin
the discussion. The subsequent studies to Lewin have created a foundation for a growing
awareness of the importance of understanding change and the causes for resistance to the change
efforts.
Organizational change theory; although it impacts small organizations, global
corporations and even political systems; is in its infancy for exploring successful organizational
models to give change leaders an advantage by understanding and overcoming the resistance to
change.
Literature Review
17
REFERENCES:
Adair, J. (2010). Strategic leadership: How to think and plan strategically and provide direction. London
UK: Kogan Page Limited.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Physchological
Association. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. (1999). Making change permnanent; A model for
institutionalizing change interventions. Research in Organizational Change and Development,
97-128.
Barton, L. C., & Ambrosini, V. (2013). The moderating effect of organizational change cynicism on middle
manager strategy commitment. International Journal of Human Resources, 721-746.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don't produce change. Harvard
Business Review, 71-80.
Burchell, J. (2011). Anticipating and managing resistance in organizational information technology (IT)
change initiatives. International Journal of the Academic Business World, 19-28.
Cameron, K. S., & Whetten, D. A. (1984). Perceptions of organizational effectiveness over organizational
life cycles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 525-544.
Chatzinikou, V., & Bellou, I. (2015). Preventing employee burnout during eposodic organziational
changes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 1-22.
Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning todo what matters most. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Hon, A. H., Bloom, M., & Crant, M. J. (2014). Overcoming resistance to change and enhancing creative
performance. Journal of Management, 919-941.
Jick, T. (1991). Implementing Change. Boston MA: Harvard Business School.
Jones, G. R. (2013). Organizational Theory, Design, and Change. New Jersey: Pearson.
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2001). The real reason people won't change. Harvard Business Review, 85-92.
Milliman, J., VonGlinow, M. A., & Nathan, M. (1991). Organizational life cycles and strategic international
human resource management. Academy of Management Review.
Oech, R. v. (2011). A Whack on the side of the head; How can you be more creative. Menlo Park CA:
Creative Think.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of
attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 783-794.
Puccio, G., Mance, M., & Murdock, M. (2011). Creative Leadership; Skills that drive change. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Literature Review
18
Ray, J. L., Baker, L. T., & Plowman, D. A. (2011). Organizational mindfulness in business schools. Academy
of Management Learning & Education, 188-203.
Spradlin, D. (2012, September). Are you solving the right problem? Most firms aren't and that
undermines their innovation efforts. Harvard Business Review, pp. 85-93.
Su, S., Baird, K., & Schoch, H. (2015). Management Accounting Research, 40-53.
Turner, D.-M. (2013, June 11). Turner Change Management, Inc. Retrieved January 17, 2015, from
Turner Change Management: http://www.thinktransition.com/articles/the-paradox-of-changemanagement-2/
Woodman, R. W. (2014). The science of organizational change and the art of changing organizations. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 463-477.