Understanding how personality based dispositions affect teachers
level of resistance to change
Abstract: Personality based disposition is important to consider in relationship to the
growing pace of technological change in the classroom. Resistance to change is a
significant barrier to successful change implementation. This paper explores the role of
personality constructs in regard to a dispositional view regarding change
Intro
With the increasing pervasiveness of implemented change in the educational and organizational processes,
the acceptance of this change, has a significant role to play regarding the success of technology integration
and adoption. New opportunities and threats to staying effective in accomplishing educational goals come
in the form of new government regulations, technological advancements, and the changing demographic of
both students and employees. The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) has
recognized the need for change, stating that facilitating change is more critical now than ever (ASTD,
2009). Leadership regarding change requires insight into the nature of change and a deep understanding of
how it will affect teachers and educators alike.
The purpose of this paper is to better understand the historical perspectives and affects of resistance to
change, what specific dispositions of individuals are related to change resistance, and the implications of
resistance to change on educators.
Historical view of resistance to change
As the pace of technological advances in both method and design have exponentially increased with time,
examining the casual relationship between change and those it effects has become increasingly paramount
to the success of any organization. From the perspective of organizational development, change is “a set of
behavioral science-based theories, values, strategies, and techniques aimed at the planned change of the
work setting for the purpose of enhancing individual development and improving performance” (Porras &
Robertson, 1992, p. 723).
The identification of change resistance by employees had become a well known and documented influence
since the middle of the 20th century. According to Lawrence (1954)
One of the most baffling and recalcitrant of the problems which business executives face is
employee resistance to change. Such resistance may take a number of forms – persistent reduction
in output, increase in the number of “quits” and requests for transfer, ‘chronie’ quarrels, sullen
hostility, wildcat or slowdown strikes, and of course, the expression of a lot of pseudo logical
reasons why the change will not work (p.49)
According to Dent and Goldberg (1999), the origin of the term “resistance to change” is credited to Kurt
Lewin. Lewin (1951) argued that change resistance was “based on the person as a complex energy field in
which all behavior could be conceived of as a change in some state of a field” (Marrow, 1969, p.30). The
force field analysis is a popular visual representation of resistance to change. Competing forces hinder or
support reaching the desired outcome. While many constructs may play a role in the driving and restraining
forces to accept change, personality constructs may have a significant influence on the goal of reaching the
desired state.
Figure 1 Lewin’s Force Field Analysis
From: Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
The popularity and continued use of the force field analysis to visualize the problems common with
introducing change into operational procedures led to widespread documentation of the concept. Dent and
Goldberg (1999) noted:
By 1962, ‘resistance to change’ had taken on the meaning that is widely understood by our student
and organizational clients today and continues to be promulgated in textbooks. The meaning is a
psychological concept in which resistance is cited within the individual, and the manager’s task is
to overcome that resistance (p.34).
How can we measure change resistance?
Essentially, the term resistance refers to a judgment or a perception about an object or thing. According to
Oreg (2006), resistance to change is a tridimensional (negative) attitude towards change, which includes
affective, behavioral, and cognitive components. Every individual, characterized by their personality, may
regard organizational change in a subjective matter. Oreg stated:
The affective component regards how one feels about the change (e.g. anxious, angry); the
cognitive component involves what one thinks about the change (e.g. Is it necessary? Will it be
beneficial?); and the behavioral component involves actions or intention to act in response to the
change (e.g. complaining about the change, convincing others that the change is bad) (p.76).
While this view identifies how resistance can be measured, the degree to which each individual is affected
by the tridimensional component is in question. Pervious researchers have developed instruments to
measure personality based inclinations resistance to change.
How does personality affect resistance to change?
Personality is a characteristic of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and different personality instruments
measure different constructs. An instrument developed by Oreg (2003) formulated the Dispositional
Resistance to Change Scale (RTC) “designed to tab an individual’s tendency to resist or avoid making
changes, to devalue change generally, and to find change divisive across contexts and types of change”
(p.680). This instrument was designed to measure how individuals will resist change and was further
developed to document what specific subjective constructs are predictive of change resistance. Fitting in
with Lewin’s early dynamic force field analysis, it is hypothesized that the disposition of each individual
could either be a driving force to spur the successful implementation of the change or a resistor force
slowing or halting change altogether. Four personality constructs were identified as being the most reliably
related to a resistance to change.
These four dispositions are subjective, personality based factors that are highly predictive of high levels of
resistance to change:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Routine seeking
Emotional reaction to imposed change
Short-term focus
Cognitive rigidity
The scale can be used to account for the correlation between a disposition to change and corresponding
levels of resistance, as each factor addresses the various forms of resistance to change.
Those individuals who prefer routine seeking also have low levels sensations seeking, stimulation, novelty,
and have the reluctance to give up old habits, all important factors that indicate how an individual will
regard change across contexts and indicate a resistance to change through their actions.
The affective dimension of resistance is measured by the 2nd and 3rd constructs of the instrument. The factor
“Emotional reaction to imposed change” measures resistance in the form of emotions: most typically cited
as stress and uneasiness.
The third construct measures the individual’s preference for having a short term focus, which is classified
as an affective resistance. Those with short term focus are “distracted by the short term inconveniences of
change and refrain from a rationally viewed long term benefit” (Oreg, 2003, p. 683).
Cognitive rigidity is seen as a cognitive resistance to change. Individuals with this disposition are
frequently unwilling or unable to easily change their minds. As change inherently introduces a number of
mental constructs that require a pattern of thinking that is both novel and sometime unanticipated.
The findings of a particular study by Oreg (2006) to conclude:
Dispositional resistance to change predisposes some people to show an adverse reaction to a
change even if the change is docile and its context is relatively welcoming. Such people find
comfort in routines, are less flexible cognitively, and find it more difficult to set aside the shortterm inconveniences of change. Not only do they react more negatively than other harmful
changes, but they also resist changes that may turn out to be beneficial. Knowledge of who these
people are is important for organizational change management…(p.943).
Resistance to change in the classroom
As the pace of technological change in the classroom continues to grow, examining the relationship
between teacher’s personality and their level of resistance to change has been studied. Overbay, Patterson,
and Grable (2009) examined the relationship between resistance to change, and the effect of teacher
retention. A 3-year infusion of technology was implemented into the instructional methods of the faculty
members. The study revealed that the personality based inclinations of teachers were predictive of reaction
to imposed change. Furthermore, some teachers were three times more likely to leave their schools,
compared to teachers with other personality preferences. By the end of the second year of technology
integration, 21.5% of all individuals surveyed left the school and 40.5% of those with a personality based
resistance left by year two (Overbay, Patterson, & Grable, 2009). This study illustrates the effect of
personality on levels of resistance to change.
Further examination about the relationship between teachers’ dispositions and level of resistance to change
may help administrators and researchers understand this dynamic field. Through continued analysis,
professionals may be able to more fully understand the affective, cognitive, and behavioral signs of
resistance allowing schools to maximize the effectiveness of the teachers currently under their employ.
Conclusion
As technological advancements become more prevalent in the classroom, understanding and predicting
individual employees’ dispositions to change are becoming more critical factors in terms of change
management (Chen and Wang, 2007). To better manage the resistance that is inherent in all change
practices, school systems would do well to understand 1) The implications of change resistance as a barrier
to future success 2) Documenting and further refining the definition of resistance to change, 3)
Understanding how personality constructs led to a greater or lesser resistance to change, and 4) Becoming
aware of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive signs of change resistance.
References
American Society for Training and Development. (2009). Facilitating organizational change
certificate. Retrieved on February 22, 2010 from
http://store.astd.org/Default.aspx?tabid=167&ProductId=20661.
Chen, J. & Wang, L. (2007). Locus of control and the three components of commitment to change.
Personality and Individual Differences, 42(3), 503-512.
Dent, B.E. and Goldberg, S.G. (1999). Challenging ‘resistance to change.’ Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 35(1), 25-41.
Lawrence, P.R. (1954). How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 32(3), 49-57.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Marrow, A.J. (1972). The failure of success. New York: AMACOM.
Oreg, S. (2003). Resistance to change: Developing an individual differences measure. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88(4). 660-693.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work
and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101.
Overbay, A., Patterson, A., & Grable, L. (2009). On the outs: learning styles, resistance to change, and
teacher retention. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 356-370.
Porras, J.I., & Robertson P.J. (1992). Organizational development: theory, practice, research. Handbook of
Organizational Psychology, 3, 719-822.