Change Ford, Ford and d'Amelio note that most change literature takes the view that resistance to change is irrational and dysfunctional. If this is the view that is taken by the actual change agents, it is not hard to see that the change agents themselves could be contributing to resistance to change. Resistance cannot always be interpreted as self-serving or irrational (two things that are contradictory, it should be noted). The first step is a change agent not becoming part of the problem is to recognize that there may be other, more logical motivations for resistance. This is not to say that resistance is never irrational or self-serving, but just that change agents cannot assume this to be the case. If they do make such an assumption, then their response to the resistance may only make matters worse. They may invalidate the opinions of those resistance the change, something that could only reduce organizational motivation and result in more employees becoming even more disaffected.

Ford et al. outlines some of the ways in which change agents contribute to change resistance, in part by failing to recognize properly the roles that both change agents and the rest of the organization play in the change process. The first way in which change agents contribute to change resistance is by breaking agreements and violating trust. Any organizational process is dependent on a certain level of trust between the different actors. Thus, broken agreements and other violations of trust inherently increase the level of resistance in the organization. Change agents cannot see themselves an infallible actors whose actions are beyond reproach. There needs to be a certain level of honesty and humility from the change agents in order to ensure that trust is maintained. The same goes for the rest of the organization -- it cannot violate trust either or the change agent will react negatively and the entire...

For a change to be effective, the rationale for the change needs to be well-communicated, as does the role that everybody involved must play in the change process. Too often, change agents operate on the assumption that they have communicated everything perfectly, but that is not necessarily the case. Some of the effects of communication breakdown are as follows: the change is never properly legitimized; the change is misrepresented and there is no call for action. The first important because change works better when everybody in the organization is motivated to make the change. The change agent needs to ensure that this is the case. If the change is misrepresented, trust is going to erode. If there is no call for action, then the different people within the organization will not understand what role that they play in the change process. Without motivation and a clear role, most people will not be as receptive to disruptive change efforts.
Resisting resistance is another way that the authors identify as a way in which change agents contribute to change resistance. Basically, when the change agent meets with resistance, and resists this, that creates a cycle of resistance. Such a cycle can be difficult to break, leading to intransigence all around. Thus, resistance must be met with a little bit more humility, and not with the assumption that the change is irrational, as that may well start a negative cycle that will be entirely disruptive to the process.

2. Ford et al. argue that resistance can be used to improve the change process. They outline several ways in which this can happen. The first is that management first needs to accept the value of resistance. To avoid the cycle of negativity that begins with resistance is met with intransigence…