8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

1/13

* Academy

 o Management eview

2000, Vol. 25, No. 4,

  783-794.

R E T H I N K I N G R E S I S T A N C E A N D R E C O G N I Z I N G

A M B I V A L E N C E : A   M U L T I D I M E N S I O N A L

V I E W O F A T T I T U D E S T O W A R D A N

O R G A N I Z A T I O N A L C H A N G E

SAN DY KRISTIN PIDERIT

C ase W estern Reserve U niversity

In this article

 

review studies

 of

  resistance

  to

  change

 and

  advocate

 new

  research

based  on a  reconceptualization  of  individual responses  to  change  as  multidimen-

sional attitudes. A ch allenging question for research and practice arises: H ow can we

balanc e the organizational n eed to ioster ambivalent attitudes toward chang e and the

individual need  to  minimize  the  potentially debilitating effects  of  ambivalence? 

conclude  by  highlighting  the  importance  of  examining  the  evolution  of  employee

responses  to  change over time and the  need  to  understand responses  to  change

proposals that emerge from bottom-up egalitarian change processes.

Adapting to changing goals and demands has

been a timeless challenge for organizations, but

the task seems to have become even more cru-

cial in the past decade. In the for-profit sector,

global population growth and political shifts

have opened new markets for products and ser-

vices at a dizzying pace. To respond to the pace

of change, organizations are adopting flatter,

more agile structures and more empowering,

team-oriented cultures. As status differences

erode, some employees are coming to expect

involvement in decisions about organizational

change. Successful organizational adaptation is

increasingly reliant on generating employee

support and enthusiasm for proposed changes,

rather than merely overcoming resistance.

The concept of resistance to change has been

widely studied, but it has limitations. Both Mer-

ron (1993) and Dent and Goldberg (1999) have

argued for retiring the phrase resistance to

change. The limitations of the concept can be

framed in philosophical terms; for instance, crit-

ical theorists and labor policy scholars argue

that the interests of managers should not be

privileged over the interests of workers when

studying organizational change (Jermier,

Knights,

 

Nord, 1994). Alternatively, the limita-

tions of the concept can be framed in practical

I g ra te ful ly ac know ledge  the  comments  of  Richard

Bagozzi, David Deed s, Jane Dutton, Loren Dyck, Phoebe E lls-

worth, Eric Neilsen, Mary Grace Neville, Janet Weiss, and

the reviewers and special issue editor on earlier versions of

this work.

terms;

 for instance, practical scholars and schol-

arly practitioners argue that the concept might

have outlived its usefulness (Dent & Goldberg,

1999;

 Krantz, 1999). My purpose here is to sum-

marize a critique of existing views of resistance

to change and to advocate a view that captures

more of the complexity of individuals' responses

to proposed organizational changes.

In the first part of the article, I suggest that in

studies of resistance to change, researchers

have largely overlooked the potentially positive

intentions that may motivate negative re-

sponses to change. I also show how studies of

resistance have dichotomized responses to

change and, thus, somewhat oversimplified

them. Furthermore, I argue that varied empha-

ses in the conceptualization of resistance have

slipped into the literature, blurring our sense of

the complexities of the phenomenon.

In the second part of the article, I propose a

multidimensional view of responses to proposed

organizational changes, capturing employee re-

sponses along at least three dimensions (emo-

tional, cognitive, and intentional). Within this

view, resistance to a change is represented by

the set of responses to change that are negative

along all three dimensions, and support for a

change is represented by the set of responses

that are positive along all three dimensions.

Responses to a change initiative that are neither

consistently negative nor consistently positive,

which were previously ignored but are poten-

tially the most prevalent type of initial response.

 8

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

2/13

 8

Academy

  of anagement Review

October

can be analyzed as cross-dimension ambiva-

lence in employees' responses to change.

In the third part of the article, I identify the

implications of this new view for both research

and practice. By highlighting the many other

sets of responses that can occur, this new view

shows the importance of ambivalent responses

to change for research on exit, voice, loyalty,

and neglect and for research on generating

change within organizations.

  SYNTHESIS OF P ST

CONCEPTU LIZ TIONS OF

RESIST NCE TO CH NGE

Unfavorable Responses to Change Might Be

Motivated by the Best of Intentions

In the majority of work on resistance to

change, researchers have borrowed a view from

physics to metaphorically define resistance a s a

restraining force moving in the direction of

maintaining the status quo (cf. Lewin, 1952). Fur-

thermore, most scholars have focused on the

variou s forces that lead emp loyees aw ay from

supporting changes proposed by managers. As

Watson (1982) points out, managers often per-

ceive resistance negatively, since they see em-

ployees who resist as disobedient. And as Jer-

mier et al. put it, The most prevalent way of

analysing resistance is to see it as a reactive

process where agents embedded in power rela-

t ions actively oppose init iat ives by other

ag en ts (1994: 9). Even if they only see employ-

ees who oppose change as short sighted, man-

age rs are tempted by the langu age of resistance

to treat their subordinates as obstacles.

Thus, the label of resistance can be used to

dismiss potentially valid employee concerns

about proposed changes. Of course, for a long

time in the practical literature about managing

change processes, researchers have been advis-

ing practitioners to guard against this. For ex-

ample, Mary Parker Follett pointed out in the

1920s that

we shouldn't put to ... workers finished plans in

order mere ly to get their cons ent one of two

things is likely to happ en, both bad: either we shall

get a rubber-stamped consent and thus lose what

they might contribute to the problem in question,

or else we shall find ourselves with a fight on our

hand s— an open fight or discontent seething u nder-

neath (reprinted in Graham,

  1995:

  220).

Likewise, Lawrence (1954) warns managers to

avoid creating resistance in subordinates by as-

suming that they will always be opposed to

change. In the 1990s others have reissued simi-

lar warn ing s (Dent & Goldberg , 1999; Merron,

1993). A prominent consu ltant noted tha t the con-

cept of resistance to chang e has been trans-

formed over the years into a not-so-disguised

way of blam ing the les s powerful for u nsatisfac-

tory resu lts of ch an ge efforts (Krantz, 1999: 42).

This tendency to dismiss employees' objec-

tions to chang e simply may be another manifes-

tation of the fundam ental attribution error (Jones

& Harris, 1967); that is, managers in charge of

rolling out a change initiative blame others for

the failure of the initiative, rather than accept-

ing their role in its failure. Employees are likely

to do the same thing—assigning blame for

failed chan ge attem pts to their m anag ers, rather

than themselves. However, as Klein (1976) and

Thomas (1989) argue, in most re searc h on resis-

tance to chang e, researchers have taken the per-

spective of those in charge of implementing

chang e, and so scholars have written less about

the perspectives of those with less power. Per-

haps scholars, as well as practitioners, need to

be cautioned against playing the blame game

unwittingly.

Fortunately, in other types of literature—not

yet well integrated into research on resistance

to change—scholars also remind us of a wider

range of reasons why employees may oppose a

proposed organizational change. For instance,

research on obedience to authority indicates

that resistance might be motivated by individu-

als '

  desires to act in accordance with their eth-

ical principles (Milgram, 1965; Modigliani &

Rochat, 1995). Similarly, the organizational dis-

sent literature shows that some employee resis-

tance to organizational actions is m otivated by

more than mere selfishness (Graham, 1984,

1986). Also, recent studies of issue selling (Ash-

ford, Rothbard, Piderit, & Dutton, 1998; Dutton,

Ashford, W ierba, O 'Neill,  Hayes, 1997) indicate

that em ployees might try to get top m anagem ent

to pay attention to issues that employees be-

lieve must be addressed in order for the organi-

zation to maintain high performance.

Rarely do individuals form resistant attitudes,

or express such attitudes in acts of dissent or

protest, without considering the potential nega-

tive consequences for themselves. This point is

documented in several studies. In the field of

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

3/13

 

Pideiit

785

ethics, for instance, Clinard (1983) documents

the pressures on middle man agem ent , such as

threa ts to their oppo rtuni t ies for adv anc em ent or

to their job securi ty, that can discourage man-

agers from speaking up about ethical concerns.

Me yerson a nd Scully (1995) dra m atize the dilem-

mas faced by change agents when judging how

far they can st retch those they wish to lead.

Ro drigu es an d C ollinson (1995) an alyz e the dif-

ferent ways in which Brazi l ian employees use

humo r to camo uflage and expres s their dis-

sent (1995: 740), as well a s the t imes w hen cam-

ouflage was powerful (and the condi t ions under

which more acerbic satire was used). Thus, friv-

olous expression of resis tance seems unl ikely,

s ince individuals who engage in i t could face

severe penal t i es and a re awa re tha t they should

tread l ight ly.

Hence , what some may perce ive as d i s re-

spectful or unfounded opposi t ion might also be

motivated by individuals ' e thical principles or

by their desire to protect the organizat ion 's b est

interests. It is worth entertaining efforts to take

those good intent ions more seriously by down-

playing the inval idat ing aspect of label ing re-

sponse s to cha nge res is tant.

Varying Em pha ses in the oncep tualization of

Resistance 

Studies of resistance would also benefit from

careful at tent ion to the concept 's meaning. As

Davidson argues , res i s tance has come to in-

c lude

anything and everything that workers do which

ma nag ers do not want them to do, and that work-

ers do not do that managers w ish them to do .. ..

resort to such an essen tially residu al category o

analysis can easily obscure a multiplicity of dif-

ferent actions and mea nings that merit more pre-

cise analysis in their own right (1994: 94).

A review of pas t emp i r ica l research revea ls

three different emphases in conceptual izat ions

of resis tance: as a cogni t ive s tate , as an emo-

t ional s tate , and as a behavior . Although these

conceptual izat ions overlap somewhat , they di-

verge in important wa ys. Find ing a way to bring

t o g e t h e r t h e s e v a r y i n g e m p h a s e s s h o u l d

deepen our unders tanding of how employees

respond to proposed organiza t ional changes .

Portraying resis tance in terms of behavior has

been common since the earl iest work on the

topic. In his early theorizing, Lewin (1952) de-

f ined resis tance by using a metaphor from the

physical sciences. In their classic s tudy Coch

and French (1948) focused on the undesirable

behaviors of workers in response to manage-

ment- imposed changes in jobs and work meth-

ods. With their quasi-experiment they examined

whether enc ouraging em ployee par t ic ipa t ion in

plann ing a c hang e would reduce res i s tance . Al-

though the i r conceptual d i scuss ion indica ted

that resis tance could involve undesirable be-

haviors and/or aggression, their measures fo-

cused on nei ther . Instead, the cri terioh they u sed

to compare the t reatment and control groups

was desirable behavior , in the form of compli-

ance with the product ion rate s tandards set by

management . (While s t r ict compliance with the

ra te s tandards may or may not have been ac-

companied by undes i rable behaviors or aggres-

sion, this possibi l i ty could not have been cap-

tured in the measures repor ted. ) This s tudy

generated a large body of work on the effects of

part icipat ive decision making (see McCaffrey,

Fa er m an , & Hart, 1995, for a rece nt re view ).

More recent s tudies of resis tance also have

focused on behavior . For instance, Brower and

Abolafia (1995) define re sista nc e as a par ticu lar

kind of action or inaction, and Ashforth and

Mael (1998) define resistance as intentional acts

of commission (defiance) or omission. Similarly,

Sh apiro , Lewicki, an d D evine (1995) sug ge st that

wil l ingness to deceive authori t ies const i tutes

resis tance to change, and Sagie, El izur , and

Gre enb aum (1985) use com pliant behav ior as

evidence of reduced resis tance.

In contrast , other scholars have described re-

sis tance in emotional terms. For example, Coch

an d F rench (1948) ackn ow ledge d a more emo-

t ional component of resis ta nce (agg ression), an d

in their prel iminary theory of resis tance de-

scribed the forces that they bel ieved produced

frustrat ion in employees and caused the unde-

sirable behaviors . Similarly, Vince and Brouss-

ine (1996) surfaced the responses of managers in

publ ic service organiza t ions to a per iod of

change in s t ructure and f inancial constraints .

They found that managers ' responses were often

paradoxical ly emotional . And, f inal ly, the ideas

of frustrat ion and anxiety underpin Argyris and

Scho n's (1974, 1978) pers pec tive tha t res ista nc e

arises from defensive rout ines. The approach

that they advocate emphasizes the role of an

external consul tant in surfacing the defensive-

ness inherent in those rout ines, f inding ways to

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

4/13

 8

cademy of  anagement Review

October

minimize or dissip ate the anx iety that reinforces

those routines, and m aking t ime for calmer con-

sideration of how to repair them (Argyris, 1993).

As Diamon d (1986) po ints out, althou gh the rem-

edy for resistan ce that they recomm end involves

a cognit ive real ignment of resistors ' espoused

theories and their theories-in-use, the underly-

ing nature of resistance is portrayed as highly

emot ional .

The idea that resistan ce can be overcome cog-

nit ively suggests that i t may include a compo-

nent of negat ive thoughts about the change.

Watson (1982) suggests that what is often la-

beled as resistance is , in fact , only reluctance.

Arm enak is, Harris, an d M ossholde r (1993) define

resistance in behavioral terms but suggest that

another state precedes i t : a cognit ive state they

call (un)read iness. A reinte rpre tation of the

Coch an d French q uasi-exp erimen t (Bartlem &

Locke, 1981) su gg est s that pa rticipa tion might

have motivational and cognitive effects on re-

sistan ce to cha ng e, also implying that cogn it ion

is part of the phenomenon of resistance.

Each of these three emphases in conceptual-

izat ions of resistance—as a behavior, an emo-

t ion, or a bel ief—has meri t and represents an

important part of our expe rience of resp ons es to

change. Thus, any defini t ion focusing on one

view at the expense of the others seems incom-

plete. Therefore, rather than privilege one con-

ceptual izat ion over the others, I seek to in tegrate

the three a l ternat ive views of res i s tance to

change .

A NEW VIEW OF RESPONSES TO CHANGE

AMBIVALENT ATTITUDES

These three emphases in the conceptual iza-

t ion of resistance to change can be reframed in

a more integrat ive way by borrowing the con-

cept of attitude from social psychology. Mindful

adaptat ion of the concept might be required,

because the research on a t t i tudes does not a l -

ways provide clear guidance about which di-

mensions of at t i tudes are most sal ient .

Multiple Dimensions of Attitudes

Early attitu de theo rists (Katz, 1960; Ro senb erg

  Hov land, 1960) arg ue d tha t attitud es ar e struc-

tured along three dimensions that roughly cor-

respond with the three defini t ions that have

dominated research on res i s tance to change. I

label these three dimensions of at t i tudes the

cognit ive, emotional , and intent ional . This con-

ception is known as the tripartite view of atti-

tudes (Ajzen, 1984).

In this view the cognit ive dimension of an

at t i tude refers to an individual 's bel iefs about

the attitude object. In their review of the litera-

ture on the t r ipart i te view, Eagly and Chaiken

define this dim ens ion as follows: beliefs ex-

press posi t ive or negative evaluat ion of greater

or lesser extremity, an d occa sionally ar e ex act ly

ne utra l in their eva lua tive co ntent (1998: 271).

The emotional dim ension of an a t t i tude refers to

an individual 's feel ings in response to the at t i -

tude object . Eagly and Chaiken define this di-

men sion as the feelings, moods, emotions, and

sympathet ic nervous-system act ivi ty that peo-

ple have experienced in relat ion to an at t i tude

object an d subs eq ue ntly ass oc iate with it (1998:

272).

The third dimension of at t i tudes is the most

complex and cont rovers ia l , both because in

some studies researchers f ind evidence of only

two dimensions and because others who f ind a

third dimension label it inconsistently. The find-

ings of past empirical studies of the tripartite

attitude structure are mixed (e.g., Bagozzi, 1978;

Breckler, 1984; K oth an da pa ni, 1971), an d a s Ea-

gly an d Ch aiken conclude, Evidence supp orts

the empirical separabil i ty of three classes of

evaluat ive responses under some but cer ta inly

not al l circumstances (1993:  13). In the tradi-

t ional t r ipart i te view, the conative d imen sion of

an at t i tude reflects an individual 's evaluat ions

of an at t i tude object that are based in past be-

haviors and future intent ions to act . Some re-

searchers place more emphasis on pas t behav-

iors,

  whereas others focus on future intent ions.

In some cases a separate a t t i tude dimension

concerning intent ions or behavior has been

identif ied, but in other cases intent ions are so

loosely connected w ith other dimensio ns of att i -

tudes that they have been treated as ent irely

separate const ructs .

In the context considered here, because an

emp loyee facing a new ly propo sed organizat ion-

al change is responding to a novel event , the

conative dimension is more likely to reflect in-

tent ions than pas t behaviors . (The employee

might not f ind the change process part icularly

novel, but the specific proposal is likely to have

some novel aspects.) Also, it seems more desir-

able in this applied context to t reat behavior as

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

5/13

 

i eiit

787

a separate construct so that the mutual influ-

ences of at t i tudes and behavior on one another

are not buried in an already complex set of

issues. In other words, it is useful to distinguish

between an intent ion to resist at the at t i tudinal

level and dissent or protest at the level of actual

behavior , which might or might not be planned.

By an intention I m ea n a pla n or resolution to

take some act ion, rather than a plan to t ry to

achieve some goal (Bagozzi, 1992).

Much of the work on resistance in labor pro-

ce ss the ory (e.g., Jermier et al., 1994), a s w ell a s

some recent work on extrarole behaviors, such

a s tak ing ch arg e (e.g., Morrison & Ph elps , 1999),

focuses on dissent or protest , whether inten-

t ional , habi tual , or spontaneous. Dist inguishing

between intent ion and behavior wil l al low more

careful s tudy of the connect ions between the

two concepts. Whether the intent ional dimen-

sion is suff icient ly associated with individuals '

cognit ive and emotional responses to be t reated

as a dimension of an employee's at t i tude re-

ma ins an em pirical quest ion in the context of an

a t t i t u d e a b o u t a p r o p o s e d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l

c h a n g e .

One remaining content ious quest ion in at t i -

tude research concerns the cau sal re la t ionships

among the dimensions . Fi ske and Pavelchak

(1986) label the two dominant positions in the

deb ate the p iecemeal an d ca tegory-based

views. In the piecemeal v iew, advanced by

sch olar s suc h a s Zan na a nd Rem pel (1988), it is

posi ted that variat ions in evaluat ion along the

part icular dimensions of an at t i tudinal response

wil l cause variat ions in global at t i tude. In the

cate go ry-b ase d view (Ajzen, 1984; Davis & Os-

trom, 1984), the g lob al attit ud e is view ed a s pri-

mary; changes in the global evaluat ion are mod-

eled as causes of variat ion in the cognit ive,

emotional , and intent ional dimensions, rather

than as resul ts of variat ion in those dimensions.

Unfortunately, these views are still the subject

of continuing debate in social psychology, and

competing interpretat ions and new data are st i l l

be ing advanced .

In summary, quest ions of how the mult iple

dimensions of employee responses to change

should be defined—and how they are related to

one another—remain open to further clar if ica-

t ion through empirical research. Social psycho-

logical research, however, clearly supports a

mult idimensional view of at t i tudes that can be

used to integrate the inconsistent defini t ions of

resistance that have been found in organizat ion-

al s tudies. Thus, an employee's response to an

organizat ional change along the cognit ive di-

mension might range from strong posi t ive be-

liefs (i.e. , this ch an ge is esse nti al for the or-

gan i za t i on t o succeed ) to s t rong neg a t i ve

beliefs (i.e. , this ch an ge could ruin the com pa-

ny ).  An employee 's response a long the emo-

t ional dimension might range from strong posi-

t ive emotions (such as exci tement or happiness)

to strong negat ive emotions (such as anger or

fear).

  An employee's response along the inten-

t ional dimension might range from posi t ive in-

tent ions to support the cha ng e to neg at ive inten-

tions to oppose it .

The Possib ility of mb ivalence in Resp onse to

a Particular Change Proposal

One key benefi t of using this mult idimen-

sional defini t ion to describe employees ' at t i -

tudes toward proposed changes is that concep-

t u a l i z i n g e a c h d i m e n s i o n a s a s e p a r a t e

continuum allows for the possibility of different

react ions along the different dimensions. In

some cases this might only mean that bel iefs

about a proposed change are more posi t ive than

emotional responses to the change. However,

with this definition we also recognize the possi-

bi l i ty, in other cases, of ambivalent at t i tudes,

where two a l ternat ive perspect ives are both

stron gly ex pe rien ce d (Foy, 1985; Merton, 1976;

Thompson, Zanna, 8f Griffin, 1995).

The simplest case of ambivalence to imagine

is the case in which an individual 's cognit ive

response to a proposed change is in confl ict

with his or her emotional response to the pro-

posal . Furthermore, ambivalence within a di-

mension is also possible, and, in fact , ambiva-

lence within the emotional dimension already

has been reported in research. In part icular ,

Russ ell (1980) an d W atson, Clark, an d Telleg en

(1988) hav e prese nted da ta s ugg est ing that pos-

itive and negative affect can co-occur. Similarly,

Vince and Broussine's (1996) study of public ser-

vice managers ' responses to change shows tha t

incongruent emotions, such as exci tement and

fear , are often experienced simultaneously.

In principle, ambivalence could occur within

the cognit ive or intent ional dimensions as well .

For instance, an employee exhibi t ing cognit ive

ambivalence might s imul taneous ly be l ieve tha t

the change proposed in his or her organizat ion

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

6/13

 

cademy

 o

Management Review

October

is necessary for its future survival but is not yet

sufficiently well researched. An employee ex-

hibi t ing intent ional ambivalence might plan to

oppose a proposed change through anonymous

comments in the suggest ion box but might sup-

port the chan ge in public be cau se of unce rtainty

abou t how top m ana gem ent wil l respond to crit -

icism of the change ini t iat ive. Although re-

searc h do es not shed any l ight on the l ikel ihood

of intent ional ambivalence, anecdotal evidence

of i ts occurrence can be found; Drummond's

(1998) case study of a site manager's indirect

opposition to the proposed closure of his facility

has s imi lar e lements .

The Prev alence of mbivalent ttitudes

The fol lowing examples of employees ' re-

sponses to organizat ional change, drawn from

interviews, ' also i l lustrate the meri ts of assess-

ing their at t i tudes toward change along three

dimensions. In the f i rst example an employee

had learned that his budget for offering incen-

t ives to his distr ibutors was disappearing. His

emot ional response to the announcement was

quite negative. Because the budget cut was an-

nounced la te in his planning cycle , the an-

nouncement shocked and frustrated him. How-

ever , he a l so repor ted a pos i t ive cogni t ive

response to the change: he bel ieved the chan ge

would have positive effects, since the budget for

product improvements was being increased to

allow his distributors to offer their customers a

more at t ract ive product . Thus, this employee's

response represents dn example of an ambiva-

l e n t a t t i t u d e t o w a r d t h e p r o p o s e d b u d g e t

change, because of the incongruity between his

cognit ive and emotional responses to the pro-

posal .

A seco nd ex am ple com es from an interview

with a middle manager in a large, diversif ied

company, who described his response to the re-

structuring and central izat ion of his organiza-

' To illustr ate how th e tripartit e definition of att itud es

could be used to describe employees' responses to organi-

zational cha nges, I collected stories about employees ' reac-

tions to recently proposed changes in their organization. I

conducted seven interview s with professionals and five with

managers. The interviewees had varied functional back-

grounds, and they described their reactions to three types of

organizational changes (updating work processes, develop-

ing new initiatives, and restructuring). The interview proto-

col appears in Piderit (1999).

t ion around a new enterprise-wide software sys-

tem. His ini t ial react ion to the restructuring

included posi t ive bel iefs, because he fel t the

change was sorely needed, as well as posi t ive

emotions, reflected in expressions of enthusi-

asm. However, he reported increasingly nega-

t ive intent ions over t ime, and he planned to

challenge his leadership to cancel the project i f

they would not provide the support that was

needed. He la ter spoke out aga ins t the dan gers

of the beh em oth project. Although he still be-

l ieved the change was needed, he was discour-

aged by his coworkers ' lack of commitment.

Thus,

  this manager 's ini t ial at t i tude can be rep-

resented as initially supportive, but it evolved to

a more ambivalent state as his negative inten-

t ions sol idif ied and his negative emotions to-

ward his coworkers ' laxi ty emerged.

The third exa mp le is draw n from an interview

with a consultant who learned that his f i rm was

merging with another consult ing company. He

initially responded with a combination of ex-

ci tement and fear , demonst ra t ing ambivalence

within the emotional dimension of his response

to the change . In his case that am bivalence mo-

tivated his efforts to gather information about

the rat ionale for the merger and to assess the

likelihood of job cuts in conjunction with it. Al-

though he was not comfortable discussing the

change with his superiors, because he did not

want to reveal his fears and appear insecure, he

and his peers were able to reassure each other

through their surrepti t ious information gather-

ing that the rat ionale for the merger was to

acquire consult ing ski l ls in markets that his

original f i rm had not already entered. As a re-

sul t , he became an act ive suppor ter of the

merger later on.^

In addit ion to this anec dota l eviden ce, there is

also a theoret ical reason to expect that most

employee s ' response s to a proposed cha nge wi ll

involve some ambivalence. We know from at t i -

tude researc h that the proc ess of at t i tude forma-

t i on of t en beg ins wi th ambiva l ence ( e . g . .

 

These three em ployees' descriptions of their reactions to

change were typical of the reactions reported in interviews,

since most of the interviewees described their reactions to

the organizational c han ges tha t they faced in terms of a mix

of positive and negative thoughts, emotions, and behavioral

intentions. Four of the twelve interviewees reported endur-

ing ambivalence in response to the change they faced, and

another five interviewees reported initial ambivalence.

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

7/13

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

8/13

790

  cademy of Management Review

October

resp onse s through humor (e.g., Rodrigues

 

Col-

linson, 1995) or other indirect modes of commu-

nication (e.g., Drummond, 1998). In such a case,

more data about the cha nge initiative might not

be very useful, even if it can be provided effi-

ciently in large-scale rollout meetings. Instead,

more impromptu and casual conversations

might be more effective in creating an atmo-

sphere in which employees feel safe expressing

their negative emotional responses openly.

Conversely, when employees are experienc-

ing cognitive ambivalence about a proposed

change but no negative emotional responses,

they may be qu ite direct in expre ssing the ir con-

cerns. In such a case , change age nts m ight find

that their listening ability is more important

than their ability to communicate their own per-

spectives on the cha nge to employees. Oversell-

ing the benefits of the change may not be effec-

tive in securing employee support, if employees

already accept that the change will have some

positive outcomes but feel a different perspec-

tive is required.

Of course, the merits of these premises are

empirical questions, to be examined in future

research on predicting employee voice, loyalty,

and neglect and in research on the modes in

which employee responses to change are ex-

pressed and managed.

A second key implication of the new multidi-

mensional view of employee responses to pro-

posed organizational chang es is that the degree

of ambivalence in an employee's attitude may

have both desirable and undesirable conse-

quences. Paying attention to balancing those

consequences will help us understand how to

manage change processes successfully. A vari-

ety of research indicates that divergent opinions

about direction are necessary in order for

groups to make wise decisions and for organi-

zations to change effectively. For instance, re-

cent research on institutionalized dissent (Co-

hen & Staw, 1998) shows tha t, som etimes,

organizations encourage and plan for dissent

and ritualize disagreement. Although the fact

that organizations encourage dissent does not

necessarily imply that dissent is functional, it is

one reasonable explanation for the prevalence

of such an organizational practice.

Furthermore, research on organizational

learning indicates that disagreement and dis-

confirmation of expectations can be important

triggers for developing knowledge. In fact, Bar-

nett argu es that an em phasis on failure, nega-

tive feedback, stress, or 'crisis' as a learning

stimulus has eclipsed the potential importance

of other meaningful stimuli (e.g., opportunities,

peo ple, and success) (1994:

 8)

 as conditions that

foster learning. Similarly, research on strategic

change processes indicates that disagreement

can play a key role in supporting organizational

renewal. Studies by Barr, Stimpert, and Huff

(1992), Burgelman (1991), and Floyd and Wool-

dridge (1996) show that if the organization's

managers do not experiment, it seems unlikely

that they will be able to carry out a renewal

process. The implication of all this research is

that moving too quickly toward congruent posi-

tive attitudes toward a proposed change might

cut off the discussion and improvisation that

may be nec essary for revising the initial ch ange

proposal in an adaptive manner.

It is not clear, however, whether the expres-

sion of resistance (i.e., uniformly negative re-

sponses to change) is likely to encourage con-

tinued discussion, debate, and improvisation.

Indeed, the honest expression of ambivalence

seems m ore likely to generate dialogue tha n the

expression of either determined opposition or

firm support.

Several research pieces also indicate that am-

bivalence and its acknowledgment might have

positive effects. Pratt and Barnett (1997) argue

that ambivalence is needed to stimulate un-

learning (the discarding of obsolete and mis-

leading knowledge), which is a necessary pre-

cursor to change. Similarly, Weigert and Franks

argue that the expression of ambivalence in

public is likely to lead to public collective re-

spo nses (1989: 223), sug gesting that acknow l-

edging am bivalence c an provide a bas is for mo-

tivating new action, rather than the continuation

of old routines. Furthermore, recent research on

creativity indicates that insight is primarily de-

pendent on ana logical r etr iev al.. .. moreover,

this retrieval usually is cued by some external

event (Sternberg,  1988:

  3).

 Work by Langley an d

Jones (1988) and by Weisberg (1988) shows that

the ability to perceive a situation from a differ-

ent angle or to apply a novel analogy is often

the key to finding a previously unconsidered

alternative that may lead to novel behavior. All

this work suggests that by fostering ambiva-

lence and reframing our understanding of the

status quo, we are better able to generate new

possibilities for understanding and action.

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

9/13

 

i eiit

791

For change agents and for theorists, the strat-

egy of fostering ambivalence rather than sup-

port in the early stages of a change initiative

invites a different view of how the first stage of

a change process should play out. The first

stage in creating change should be generating

widesprea d conversation, rather than beg inning

the change process by engaging a small group

of managers in identifying the desired change

and later aiming to gain broade r employee sup-

port for that proposal. This strategy is less con-

sistent with a view of change as a planned pro-

cess (Porras  Silvers, 1991) and more consistent

with a microlevel perspective on change as a

continuous process in which ongoing adap ta-

tion an d adjustment occur (Weick & Quinn ,

1999:  362). Some models of this type of change

process are emerging, such as the trialectic

view of change advocated by Ford and Ford

(1994) and the five-stage process model of break-

away organizations developed by Dyck and

Starke (1999). How change agents begin to gen-

erate conversation around ambivalence about

new possibilities is an important question for

future research on the first phase of the change

process.

Ambivalence, however, must be fostered with

care; we also know from other streams of re-

search that acknowledging ambivalence might

not always be optimal. On the one hand,

Weigert and Franks warri that if am bivalence

is not ritually enacted and meaningfully inter-

preted, its power to fuel extreme responses

grow s (1989: 223). On the o ther hand, Schwartz

(1986) examined the effect of inner dialogue on

personal and relational well-being and found

that an inner dialogue characterized by a high

ratio of positive to negative statemen ts w as a s-

sociated with greater well-being. This finding

suggests that acknowledging both polarities of

an ambivalent attitude toward a change pro-

posal w ith equ al time might be unhealthy. Thus,

the question that em erges for research a nd prac-

tice concerns the tensions generated by foster-

ing ambivalence: How can we balance the need

for ambivalence with the need to limit its debil-

itating effects?

A third key implication of the new multidi-

mensional view concerns the need to expand

our research beyond our past focus on top-down

organizational change. Increasingly, change

processes are managed in emergent and demo-

cratic w ays. However, our theorizing m ay not be

keeping pace, except in some emerging re-

search. For example, in the appreciative inquiry

process (Cooperrider, 1998; Cooperrider  Sriv-

astva, 1987), the proposal emerges from and is

tempered and repeatedly revised by an inclu-

sive dialogue among a larg e number of employ-

ees across many levels of hierarchy. In this ap-

proach the important question of what it means

to respond to a proposed cha nge is framed,

when the nature of the change that is proposed

remains ambiguous for much of the process.

Here, finding answers to the questions of how

multiple dimensions of an employee's re-

sponses to a change evolve over time and how

such shifts are related to the effectiveness with

which change is implemented seem s even more

important.

A fourth implication of these id ea s is that

employee responses to change may evolve

over time, and paying attention to this evolu-

tion might yield insights about how to manage

change initiatives successfully. For example,

a formal change announcement from the CEO

may shift employees' cognitive responses to a

change quite quickly from negative to posi-

tive,  but their emotional responses may re-

quire more time to shift from negative to pos-

itive,

  through many informal conversations

after the formal rollout speech. Observing pat-

terns of attitudes and ambivalence over time

might be more useful in predicting the success

of a change initiative than examining the fa-

vorability of employees' attitudes toward the

change at any one point in time. The implica-

tion is that both scholars and managers need

to pay more attention to the dynamic pro-

cesses that help to acknowledge and sustain

ambivalence without letting it impede the mo-

mentum of change.

A final im plication of these ideas is that schol-

ars who wish to understand the full range of

individual responses to proposed organization-

al changes should assess those responses along

mult iple dimensions . Appl ied research is

needed to continue the process of mindfully

adapting the concept of tripartite attitudes from

social psychology. Relevant methods for opera-

tionalizing the dimensions could include inter-

views (Piderit, 1998), surveys (Piderit, 1999), and

even more novel approaches, such as drawing

(Vince

 

Broussine, 1996).

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

10/13

 9

cademy of Managem ent Review

October

CONCLUSION

There is power in metaphor, but the physical

metaphor of resistance to chang e may have

taken us as far as we can go. In this article I

critiqued research on resistance to change for

failure to take the good intentions of resistors

seriously and for the varying emphases in con-

ceptualizations of resistance. I proposed a new

conception of responses to proposed organiza-

tional changes as multidimensional attitudes.

This new conception is intended to encourage

an appreciation for the prevalence of ambiva-

lence in individuals' responses to chang e. Inves-

tigations of what motivates those responses to

change also will be needed, as well as studies

of both the positive and the negative conse-

quences of ambivalence of different types.

These ideas are not all new to the field, but

earlier admonitions about the benefits of em-

ployee input and the drawbacks of dismissing

subord inates' responses to chang e w ere not con-

sistently brought to center stage in organization

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. Our research will begin

to give equal attention to top-down, planned

change and to bottom-up or egalitarian change

processes. Finally, we will take on the ch alleng e

of helping organization members reap the ben-

efits of ambivalence toward change for organi-

zations while minimizing its potentially stress-

ful effects for individuals.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. 1984. At titud es. In R. J. Co rsini (Ed.), WiJey encycJo-

pedia of psychology,  vol. 1: 99-100. New York: Wiley.

Ajzen, I. 1987. Attitude s, traits, a nd actio ns: Dispo sitional

prediction of behavior in personality an d social psychol-

ogy. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in

  experimental so-

cial psychology,

  vol.

 20:1-63.

 New

 York:

 Academic Press.

Argyris, C. 1993.

  Knowledge for action: A guide to overcom-

ing barriers to organizational change.

  San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C , & Schon. D. 1974. Theory in pracHce. San Fran-

cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris,

 C ,

 

Schon, D. 1978.

 Organ izational learning.

  Read-

ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. 1993.

Creating readiness for organizational change. Human

RelaHons, 46: 681-703.

Ashford, S. J., Rot hbar d, N. P., Pide rit, S. K., & Dutton, J. E.

1998. Out on a limb: The role oi context an d imp ression

management in sel l ing gender-equity issues .  Adminis-

trative  Science Quarterly 43: 23-57.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. A. 1998. The p owe r of res istan ce:

Sustain ing valued identities. In R. M. Kramer & M. A.

Neale (Eds.), Power and

  influence

  in organizations: 89 -

120. Thousand Oak s, CA: Sage.

Bagozzi j R. P. 1978. The c onstr uct val idit y of th e affective,

behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude by

analysis of covariance structures.

 Multivariate Behavior

Research

13: 9-31.

Bagozzi, R. P. 1992. The self-regula tion of atti tude s, inten-

tions, and behavior.

  Social Psychology Quarterly

55:

178-204.

Barnett, C. K. 1994. OrganizaJiona7 learning theories:

  A re-

view   and synthesis of the literature.  Working paper.

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Barr, P. S., Stim pert, J. L.,

 

Huff A. S. 1992. Cognitive ch ang e,

strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic

Management

  Journal 13: 15-36.

Bartlem, C. S., & Locke, E. A. 1981. The Coch an d Frenc h

study: A critique and reinte rpretation. Human Relations,

34: 555-566.

Beer, M., & Wa lton, A. E. 1987. Org aniza tion cha nge an d

development. A nnuai

 Review of Psychology,

  38: 339-367.

Breckler, S. J. 1984. Em pirical v alida tion of affect, beha vior,

and cognition as distinct com ponents of attitude.

 Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology 47: 1191-1205.

Brower, R. S., & A bolafia, M. Y. 1995. The s tructu ral emb ed-

dedness of res is tance among public managers . Group

and Organization

  Management,

  20: 149-166.

Burgelm an, R. A. 1991. Intra orga niza tiona l ecology of strat-

egy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and

field re sea rch. O rganiza tion Sc ience, 2: 239-262.

Clinard, M. B. 1983.

 Corporate ethics an d crime: The role of

middle management.

  Beverly Hills, CA: Sag e.

Coch, L.,

 

French , J. R. P., Jr. 1948. Overc oming res ista nce to

change .  Human Relations,  1: 512-532.

Cohe n, L. E.,

 

Staw,

 B.

 M. 1998. Fun's over, fact che cker s a re

here: A cas e study of institutionalized dissen t in the

magazine publishing industry. Advances in

  Qualitative

Organization Research

vol.  1: 105-136.

Coop errider D. L. 1998. Capturing wha t matters mo st  in   the

practice of appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in

change.

  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

Academy of Management, San Diego.

Coope rrider, D. L.,  Sriva stva, S. 1987. App reciativ e inquiry

in organizat ional l i fe .

  Research in Organizational

Change and Development

1: 129-169.

Davidson, J. O C.

  1994.

  The sources and limits of resistance

in a privatized utility. In J. M. Jermier, D . Knights,

 

W. R.

Nord (Eds.),  Resistance and power in organizations:  6 9 -

101. New York: Routledge.

Davis,

 D.,

  Ostrom, T. M. 1984. Attitude m eas ure me nt. In

 R.

 J.

Corsini (Ed.),

 Wiley   encyclopedia of psychology:

  97-99.

New York: Wiley.

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

11/13

 

Pideiit

793

Dent, E. B., & Goldb erg, S. G. 1999. Ch alle ngi ng resi stan ce

to change.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences,

35(1):

 25-41 .

Diamond, M. A. 1986. Resistance to change: A psychoanalyt ic

critique of Argyris and Schon's contributions to organi-

zation theory and intervention.  Journal of Management

Studies 23: 543-562.

Drumm ond, H. 1998. Go an d say , we're shuttin g : Ju Jitsu as

a metaphor for analyzing resistance. Human Relations,

51:

 741-759.

Dutton,

 J.

 E., Ashford, S. J., W ierb a, E. E., O'Neill, R.,  Hayes, E.

1997. Beading the wind: How middle man age rs as se ss

the context for issue selling to top managers. Strategic

Management  Journal

15:

 407-425.

Dyck, B., & Starke , F. A. 1999. The form ation of bre ak aw ay

organizations: Observations and a process model. Ad-

ministrative Science  Quarterly 44: 792-822.

Eagly, A. H.,

 

Chaiken, S.  1993. The psychology of attitudes.

Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Eagly, A. H.,

 

Chaiken, S. 1998. Attitude structure and func-

tion. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindse y (Eds.),

Handbooi of social psychology, vol. 2: 269-322. Boston:

McGraw-Hill.

Fiske, S. T.,

 

Payelchak, M. A. 1986. Catego ry-ba sed versu s

piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in

schema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino

 

E. T. Hig-

gins (Eds.), Handbooi of motivation and cognition: Foun-

dations

  of social behavior

vol. 1: 167-203. New York:

Guilford.

Floyd, S. W., & Wooldridge, B. 1996.

  The strategic middle

manager. San  Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ford, J. D.,

 

Ford, L. W.

 1994.

 Logics of identity, c ontradic tion,

and attraction in change. Academy of Management Re-

view

19: 756-785.

Foy, N. 1985. Am bivalen ce, hypo crisy, an d cy nicism: Aids to

organization change. JVew

 Management

2(4): 49-53.

Gole mbie wsk i, R. T., Billingsley, K.,

 

Yeager, S. 1976. Mea-

suring change and persistence in human affairs: Types

of change generated by OD designs .

 Journal of Applied

Behavioral Sciences,  12(2): 133-157.

Graham, J. 1984.

  Abstract of a

  dissertation on principled

organizational dissent. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the Society for Industrial an d Orga nizationa l

Psychology, Toronto.

Gra ham , J. 1986. Principled org anizational dissent: A theo-

retical

  essay.  Research in Organizational Behavior,  8:

1-52.

Graham, P. (Ed.). 1995. Mary Parker Follett^prophet of man-

agement: A celebration of writings from the 1920s.   Bos-

ton:

  Harvard Business School Press.

Hirsch man , A. O. 1970. Exit, voice, a nd   loyalty: Responses to

decline  in  firms, organizations, and states.  Cambridge,

MA: Har vard U niversity Press .

Janssen, O., de Vries, T., & Cozijrisen, A. J. 1998. Voicing by

adapting and innovating employees: An empirical study

on how personality and environment interact to affect

voice behavior. Human Relations,

  51:

 945-966.

Jermier, J. M., Knights, D., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.). 1994. Resis-

tance and power in organizations. London: Routledge.

Jones, E. E.,  Harris, V. A. 1967. The a ttributio n of a ttitu des .

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3: 1-24.

Katz, D. 1960. The functional app roa ch to the stud y of atti-

tudes. Public Opinion

  Quarterly

24: 163-204.

Klein, D. 1976. Some no tes on the d yna mic s of res ista nc e to

cha nge : The defend er role. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne,

R. Chin,

 

K. E. Core y (Eds.),

 The planning of change

  (3rd

ed.):

 117-124. New York: Holt, Rinehart

 

Winston.

Kothandapani,

 V. 1971.

 Validation of feeling,

 belief

and inten-

tion to act as three components of attitude and their con-

tribution to prediction of contraceptive be havior.

  ournal of

Personality and Social Psychology,

 19: 321-333.

Krantz, J. 1999. Comm ent on challen ging 're sistan ce to

change.'

ournal

  of Applied Behavioral Sciences,  35(1):

42-44.

Langley, P., & Jones, R. 1988. A computational model of sci-

entific insight. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),

  The nature of

creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives:

177-201. New York: Cam bridge University Pr ess.

Lawrence, P. R. 1954. How to deal w ith resistan ce to chan ge.

Harvard Business Review,  32(3): 49-57.

Lewin, K. 1952. Grou p dec ision a nd social cha nge . In G. E.

Swanson, T. M. Newcombe,

 

E. L. Ha rtley (Eds.),

 Read

ings in social

  psychology (2nd ed.): 459-473. New York:

Holt.

McCaffrey, D. P., Fae rm an , S. R., & Hart, D. W. 1995. The

appeal and difficulties of participative systems. Or-

ganization Science, 6: 603-627.

Merron, K. 1993. Let's bury the term resista nce. Org aniza -

tional Development

  Journal

11(4): 77-86.

Merton, R. K. 1976. Sociological

  ambivalence and other es-

says.  New York: Free Press.

Meyerson, D. E., & Scully, M. A. 1995. Tem pered rad icalis m

and the politics of ambivalence and change. Organiza-

tion Scien ce, 6: 585-600.

Milgram, S. 1965. Some cond itions of obed ienc e an d d isobe -

dience to authority. Human  Relations 18: 57-76.

Mod igliani, A., & Rochat, F. 1995. The ro le of intera ction

sequences and the timing of resistance in shaping obe-

dience and defiance to authority.   Journal of Social Is-

sues

51(3): 107-123.

Morrison, E. W.,

 

Phe lps, C. C. 1999. Taking c har ge a t work:

Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace chan ge.

  Academy

of Management  Journal 42: 403-419.

Piderit, S. K. 1998. United we  stand:  Embedding attitudes

toward change

  in social relationships. Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management,

San Diego.

Piderit, S. K. 1999. Wavigating rela tionsh ips with c ow orie rs:

Understanding  employees attitudes toward an organi-

zational  change.  Unpublished doctoral d issertat ion .

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Porra s, J. L, & S ilvers, R. C.

  1991.

 Organiza tion developm ent

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

12/13

794

  cademy of Management Review

October

and transformation.  Annual

  Review of Psychology

42 '

51-78.

Pratt, M. G.,  Barnett, C. K 1997. Emotions and unlearning in

Am way re cru i t ing t e chn iq ues : P romot ing cha nge

through safe ambivalence.

  Management Learning

28(1): 65-88 .

Rod rigu es, S. B., & C ollin son, D. L. 1995. Hav ing fun ?: Hu-

riior as res istan ce in Brazil.  Organization  Studies 16:

739-768.

Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. 1960. Cognitive, affective,

and behav ioral compone nts of attitudes. In M. J. Rosen-

berg (Ed.),

 Attitude organization and change:

  1-14. New

Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Rusbult, C. E., Farre ll, D., Rogers, G.,

 

Mainous, A. G. 1988.

Impact of exc hange varia bles on exit, voice, loyalty, and

neglect: An integrative m odel of resp onses to declining

job satisfaction.  Academy of Management Journal  31:

599-627.

Russell, J. A. 1980. A circumplex model of affect.

  ournal

  of

Personality and Social Psychology

39: 1161-1178.

Sagie , A., Elizur, D., & Gr een bau m, C. W. 1985. Job expe ri-

ence, persuasion strategy, and resistance to change.

Journal of Occupational Behavior

6: 157-162.

Saunders , D. M., Shepp ard, B. H., Knight, V.,

 

Warshaw, P. R.

1992.

 Employee voice to supervisors. Em ployee Respon-

sibility and Rights Journal 3: 241-259.

Schwartz, R. M. 1986. The inner dialogue: On the asymmetry

between positive and negative coping thoughts.  Cogni-

tive

  Therapy and Research

10: 591-605.

Sha piro , D. L., Lewicki, R. J., & Devine, P. 1995. Wh en do

employees choose deceptive tactics to stop unwanted

organizat ional change?   Research on Negotiation   in Or-

ganizations

5: 155-184.

Ste rnb erg , R. J. (Ed.). 1988. The nature

  of creativity: Contem-

porary psychological perspectives.

  New York: Cam -

bridge University Press.

Thomas, R. J. 1989. Participation and control: A shopfloor

perspective on employee participation.

  Research   in   the

Sociology of Organizations 7: 117-144.

Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P.,  Griffin,

  D.

 W .

 1995.

 Let's not

be indifferent ab out (attitudina l) ambi val enc e. In R. E.

Petty

 

J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Anteced -

ents and consequences: 361-386. Ma hwa h, NJ: Law rence

Eribaum Associates.

Vince, R.,

 

Broussine, M. 1996. Paradox, defense, and attach-

ment: Accessing and working with emotions and rela-

tions underlying organizational change.

  Organization

Studies 17: 1-21.

Wa tson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. 1988. Deve lopment

and validation of brief measures of positive and nega-

tive affect: T he PANAS scale s./ournal

 of Personality and

Social Psychology

54: 1063-1070.

Watson, T. J. 1982. Group ideologies and organ izational

change .  ournal  of Mana gement Studies 19: 259-275.

Weick, K. E.,

 

Quinn, R. E. 1999. Organ izational cha nge and

development .

 Annual Review of Psychology 50:

  361-386.

Weigert, A., & Franks, D. D. 1989. Ambivalence: Touchstone

of the modern temper. In D. D. Franks & E. D. McCarthy

(Eds.),

  The sociology  of  emotions:

  205-227. Greenwich,

CT: JAI Pre ss.

We isberg, R. W. 1988. Problem solving a nd creativity. In R. J.

Sternberg (Ed.),

  The nature of creativity: Contempo rary

psychological perspectives:

  148-176. New York: Cam-

bridge University Press.

Withe y, M. J., & Coo per, W. H. 1989. Pre dict ing exit, vo ice,

loyalty and neglect.

  Adm inistrative Science Q uarterly

34:

 521-539.

Zanna, M, P.,  Rem pel, J. K.

 1988.

 Attitudes: A new look at an

old concept.

  In

 D. Bar-Tal 

A.

 W. Kruglan ski (Eds.),

 The

social  psychology of knowledge:  315-334. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Sandy Kristin Piderit  is an assistant professor of organizational behavior in the

Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University. She re-

ceived her Ph.D. at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. In her research she

examines the roles of individuals in organizational change and the dynamics of

relationships among coworkers.

8/17/2019 Piderit (2000)

13/13