Change recipients’ resistance and salience to organizational re-creation: the effects of participation and coercion strategies on change derailment

Abstract

Purpose

For change initiatives to succeed, change managers are required to address recipients’ needs. Although strategies to deal with change recipients and their resistance are widely explored, there is a dearth of studies that consider the different salience of change recipients. This paper aims to propose a framework on the effects of participation and coercion as strategies to deal with change recipients and their impact on change derailment.

Design/methodology/approach

Conceptual based upon that change recipients are classified into three levels according to their salience in relation to change. Based upon the recipients’ power and legitimacy in relation to change, stakeholder salience theory constitutes a theoretical provision used in this research to categorize the salience of change recipients.

Findings

The framework integrates change recipients’ salience levels (i.e. definitive, expectant and latent) and the effects of participation and coercion strategies on change derailment in times of organizational re-creation. The paper develops six hypotheses, which yield insights that advance the understanding of dealing with change recipients in the context of organizational re-creation.

Research limitations/implications

The paper is conceptual and not yet tested empirically. To empirically test the framework, research adopting survey methodology to gather data from organizations that experience a re-creation change as defined in this paper. The unit of analysis for future research is described in this paper and it is how organizational re-creation is defined in this paper.

Originality/value

Stakeholder salience theory is used to develop a framework that combines three classes of change recipients’ salience, as well as the effects of two strategies to deal with them and their resistance (i.e. lack of involvement and coercion) to examine their influence on change derailment. The potential contribution will expand the current literature discussed in this paper about dealing with change recipients’ resistance to change.

Citation

R. Alhezzani, Y.M. (2021), "Change recipients’ resistance and salience to organizational re-creation: the effects of participation and coercion strategies on change derailment", Organization Management Journal , Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 2-18. https://doi.org/10.1108/OMJ-10-2018-0608

Introduction

Due to the changing internal and external organizational environment, many forces of change such as technological, legal, growth and economic emerge (Auster and Ruebottom, 2013; Mills et al., 2009; Nadler and Shaw, 1995), and therefore, organizational change is unavoidable (Armenakis et al., 1993; Auster and Ruebottom, 2013; Nadler and Tushman, 1995; Oreg and Berson, 2011; Van de Ven and Sun, 2011). Notwithstanding the widely reported 70% organizational change failure rate, this rate has not been empirically examined (Hughes, 2011). Many authors (Beer and Nohria, 2000; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Mills et al., 2009); acknowledge that the majority of change initiatives do not succeed. The main challenge of this is the resistance of those who receive the change (Shin et al., 2012; Van Dijk and Van Dick, 2009). Therefore, bringing about radical organizational change is far from simple (Lines, 2007; Nadler and Tushman, 1995).

Resistance to organizational change was first investigated by scholars in the 1940s, led by the work of Coch and French (1948), yet the possible methods to deal with it are still being developed (Nistelrooij and Caluwe, 2016; Oreg et al., 2018; Satell, 2019). Change managers encounter difficulties not only because implementing change and particularly radical change, is challenging and can be approached in a variety of different ways but also because the resistance of those who receive the change (i.e. change recipients) is a primary obstacle of change success (Shin et al., 2012).

However, the literature on dealing with change recipients and their resistance to change is more concerned with situational factors such as time availability and overlooks attributes related to the change recipients. For instance, the coercion strategy can be used to overcome resistance to change when the time to implement the change is restricted (Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008). Involving change recipients in the change process is an effective strategy to address their resistance; however, this is time-consuming (Carnall, 2007; Harrison and Freeman, 2004; Morris and Raben, 1995). However, less research considers the effects change recipients can have on a given change. This paper addresses this issue by providing a detailed explanation and classification of the effects change recipients gave on change initiatives.

This paper incorporates stakeholder salience theory as a theoretical lens to define and classify change recipients’ attributes. The salience theory is relevant and applicable to change recipients because all change recipients are also stakeholders. Freeman (1984) defines stakeholders as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization’s purpose” (p. 53). Salience theory posits that stakeholders, of whom change recipients are a subgroup, are varied in their salience based on their power, legitimacy and urgency, and therefore different levels of attention from managers are required (Mitchell et al., 1997).

In terms of types of change, this paper focuses on organizational re-creation, which is intended to mean change that is both radical and unplanned. This type of change is regarded as the most challenging to pursue because of time limitations (Nadler and Tushman, 1989, 1995). Consequently, change managers will inevitably be in a position to use strategies to deal with change recipients ranging from the least favorable ones of the spectrum (i.e. coercion) (Hultman, 1998; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Rivard and Lapointe, 2012; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977); to the most favorable (i.e. participation) (Auster and Ruebottom, 2013; Caruth et al., 1985; Joshi, 1991; Judson, 1991; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Pardo-del-Val et al., 2012). For instance, due to the lack of time, change managers are incapable of involving all recipients of the change and coercion can be justified to deal with resistance. In this regard, classifying change recipients based on their salience will be beneficial because it enables change managers to harness the influence of the recipients on the change. In this paper, participation and coercion will be examined in terms of their effect on change derailment when used with three different types of change recipients. Change recipients are defined as an individual or group of people who the organization must influence to initiate change (Mondros and Wilson, 1994; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). In this research, change recipients are those affected by at least one of three ways reported by Jick (1990), namely, change in their job description, change in the way they perform their job and working with different people.

Change derailment is defined herein consistency with the meaning of unsuccessful change defined by Lofquist (2011) and Nutt (1986), which is a situation when the change does not take place. For example, a change, which is about merging two companies or departments is regarded as unsuccessful when the merger does not occur (Nutt, 1986). The study by Lapointe and Rivard (2005) refers to two information systems projects as unsuccessful when the two systems were withdrawn. Likewise, Lofquist (2011) reports that the resistance of air traffic controllers led to the collapse of the take-off 50 projects.

The question that this paper seeks to address is: what are the effects of lack of involvement and coercion strategies on change derailment when used to three different types of change recipients? By reviewing the relevant literature, six hypotheses were developed. Hypotheses regarding definitive change recipients (the most salient recipients) postulate that both lacks of involvement and coercion will cause change to derail once they are used with this class of change recipients. However, in respect of expectant and latent change recipients (moderate and least salient recipients), neither coercion nor prevention of participation will cause change failure.

This paper develops a framework of strategies to deal with change recipients (i.e. lack of involvement and coercion) based on their salience, which is classified into three levels, namely, definitive, expectant and latent stakeholders (Mitchell et al., 1997). To explain the framework, the structure of this paper is in four parts. First, theories on organizational change will be explained including the definition of organizational re-creation that is used. Next, the issue of resistance to change will be outlined. Then the salience theory by Mitchell et al. (1997) will be presented, which postulates that stakeholders are different in their salience based on three attributes (power, legitimacy and urgency). Finally, a conceptual framework will be introduced, which involves six hypotheses that link lack of involvement and coercion as strategies and their impact on change derailment when used with three different classes of change recipients.

Organizational change theories

Punctuated equilibrium theory posits that organizations develop by long periods of incremental change (equilibrium) that are interrupted by short periods of radical change (disequilibrium) (Gersick, 1991; Romanelli and Tushman, 1994). Punctuated equilibrium theory consists of three components, namely, equilibrium periods, disequilibrium periods and deep structure (Gersick, 1991). The equilibrium time is when the deep structure is slightly changed while the disequilibrium period changes the deep structure fundamentally (Gersick, 1991; Tushman and Romanelli, 1985). The deep structure as defined by Gersick (1991) is “the set of fundamental “choices” a system has made of:

• the basic parts into which its units will be organized; and

• the basic activity patterns that will maintain its existence” (p. 14).

However, in the context of organizations, the deep structure consists of five components, which are as follows: culture, strategy, structure, distribution of power and control systems (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985). In this paper, the punctuated equilibrium theory will serve as a theoretical basis for defining radical organizational change that will be shown in the next subsection.

Types of organizational change

Scholars classify change in organizations based on two dimensions, which are the change rate of occurrence (continuous vs discontinuous) (Levy and Merry, 1986; Van de Ven, 1995; Weick and Quinn, 1999) and by the way the change occurs (planned vs unplanned) (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985; Van de Ven, 1995).

Several authors (Dacin et al., 2002; Levy and Merry, 1986; Van de Ven, 1995; Weick and Quinn, 1999); distinguish between continuous change and discontinuous change. They note that continuous change is incremental change that occurs during periods of equilibrium because successful organizations always need to make some improvement or modification of their strategy, structure, culture, identity, values, mission and so forth. In other words, incremental change is when organizations need to improve the fit between their components such as work, people and culture and its external environment. Discontinuous change, on the other hand, is required in the time of a radically changing environment, therefore, organizations do not only improve the fit of their components and their environment but also, in fact, they need to build a whole new configuration with a new strategy, new work, new vision and the like, which usually takes three to seven years (Nadler and Tushman, 1995). Discontinuous change requires a major reconstruction of almost every element of the organization. Therefore, the authors emphasize that discontinuous change is more harmful, challenging and demanding on organizations than incremental change.

The distinction between incremental or radical is based on the deep structure (i.e. organizational culture, structure, strategy, control systems and power distribution) of an organization, that is part of the punctuated equilibrium theory, which was introduced by Tushman and Romanelli (1985). Along with these authors, other scholars (Gersick, 1991; Nadler and Tushman, 1989; Romanelli and Tushman, 1994), acknowledge that modifying significantly the five components of the deep structure stated above cause radical change. Gersick (1991) emphasizes this by stating “this deep structure is what persists and limits change during equilibrium periods and it is what disassembles, reconfigures and enforces wholesale transformation during revolutionary punctuations” (p. 12).

The other dimension of classifying change is whether a change is planned or unplanned (i.e. anticipatory vs reactive) (Nadler and Tushman, 1995). All types of change rest within the planned-unplanned spectrum (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985; Van de Ven, 1995; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). The major difference between the two ends is that unlike unplanned change, in planned change managers have a deliberate intention to bring about the change by recognizing problems in advance and setting aims to achieve (Seo et al., 2004; Zaltman and Duncanm, 1977). This makes the issue of timeless of a restriction on the management than in unplanned change (Nadler and Tushman, 1995). Although planned change prevails in organizations (Mills et al., 2009; Nadler and Tushman, 1989), unplanned change is more challenging to pursue (Nadler and Tushman, 1989, 1995). For this reason, unplanned change is the focus of this paper.

Organizational change is “an empirical observation of the difference in form, quality or state overtime in an organizational entity” (Van de Ven andPoole, 1995, p. 512). In this paper, change is defined as a period of reactive (unplanned) organizational change (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995) where at least three components of the deep structure (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985) (i.e. structure, strategy, culture, power and control system) are fundamentally modified (Gersick, 1991; Nadler and Tushman, 1989, 1995). Hence, by referring to Figure 1, the type of change this paper focuses on is re-creation.

Resistance to change

As there is always some loss as a result of any change, not only for the losers of the change but also for the winners, people naturally resist it Kanter (1985). The loss may be a loss of routines, comfort, past, traditions and/or relationships (Kanter, 1985). According to Kanter (1985) “change is exciting when it is done by us, threatening when it is done to us” (p. 52). Change requires different behavior and new relationships, and therefore people are likely to resist it Kotter and Schlesinger (2008). This implies that the more radical a change, the more resistance to it there will be and therefore resistance to change is regarded as the main factor that hinders organizations from achieving their desired objectives (Shimoni, 2017; Shin et al., 2012; Van Dijk and Van Dick, 2009).

Resistance to organizational change is exhibited by those who receive change. They can be purely changed recipients and change agents who also receive change (Bryant and Stensaker, 2011) such as middle managers (Bryant and Stensaker, 2011). The change recipients may resist a change because of factors related to them such as inertia and loss of power (Markus, 1983) and factors that are contributed by change agents (Ford et al., 2008) such as lack of trust and misunderstanding (Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008). Theories on resistance such as status quo bias theory (Samuelson and Zeckhauser, 1988), expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) and equity theory (Walster et al., 1978) provide an explanation of why change recipients may resist a given change. Furthermore, change recipients may resist a change because it will yield unfortunate results for their organizations. For example, Hultman (1998) posits that when a change is negative or unnecessary to an organization, the resistance needs to be seen as a solution rather than a barrier. However, the focus here is on the resistance that is perceived as negative by managers.

Stakeholder salience theory

By classifying stakeholders into primary and secondary stakeholders, Clarkson (1995) expanded the definition by Freeman (1984) to include governments and media. Therefore, a stakeholder as an entity can be individuals, groups or organizations that can influence or are influenced by the achievement of an organization’s goal. Likewise, stakeholders are defined in this paper as individuals or groups who are interdependent with a transformational program. Among these stakeholders are change recipients who are defined as individuals or groups of people whom the organization must influence to make the change (Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). In this respect, the stakeholder salience theory will serve as a theoretical lens for understanding change recipients’ salience to a change program. As with stakeholders, change recipients can be internal (e.g. employees) and/or external (e.g. customers) to an organization and also they can be purely recipients of change or recipients and agents of the change simultaneously (Bryant and Stensaker, 2011).

Stakeholder salience theory by Mitchell et al. (1997) expanded the understanding of the types of stakeholders formerly reported. Based upon three attributes, namely, power, legitimacy and urgency Mitchell et al. (1997) have introduced a stakeholder typology. The typology classifies stakeholders into three main classes (i.e. definitive, expectant and latent) and eight sub-classes. Stakeholder salience is “the degree to which managers give priority to competing stakeholder claims” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 869).

The definitions of power and legitimacy will be elucidated in the next section. Urgency is defined as “the degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate attention” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 867). However, there are two elements that constitute urgency, namely, time sensitivity and criticality. The former is “the degree to which managerial delay in attending to the claim or relationship is unacceptable to the stakeholder” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 867). The latter is defined as “the importance of the claim or the relationship to the stakeholder” (Mitchell et al., 1997, p. 867). However, there is disagreement on urgency as an attribute of stakeholder salience theory. Although Agle et al. (1999) and Parent and Deephouse (2007) admit the direct role of the urgency attribute in identifying stakeholders, Neville et al. (2011) do not. Therefore, only power and legitimacy will be considered as the attributes of stakeholder salience theory in the developed framework (Figure 2).

Toward a theoretical framework: salience, resistance and change success

As a result of using two attributes (power and legitimacy), instead of seven classes of stakeholders (Mitchell et al., 1997), three classes will be formed. The three classes will be identified as Mitchell et al. name them (i.e. definitive, expectant and latent stakeholders), but the concern here is with change recipients who are also stakeholders. To demarcate the three classes (i.e. when a particular change recipient is definitive, expectant or latent), I posit the power and legitimacy of change recipients that place them in one class rather than another. However, prior to explaining this demarcation, I depart from Mitchell et al. by arguing that the power and legitimacy of change recipients are in relation to a change program. Definitive change recipients are those who hold at least a high level of one of the attributes (i.e. power and legitimacy) and the other is either high or moderate. When both attributes are at a moderate level or one of them is high and the other is low, then the relative change recipients are regarded as expectant. Change recipients are considered as latent when the power and legitimacy they have are both low or one of them is moderate and the other is low. Definitions of the different levels of power and legitimacy are explained next.

Levels of power

Power can be enforced by many sources that were outlined earlier in this paper such as a position in the organizational hierarchy. However, irrespective of the triggers of power, the concern here is on the level of power. Stakeholder power has been defined in studies that examine the stakeholder salience model by applying the same definition that Mitchell et al. (1997) use (i.e. Dahl (1957)). For example, power is defined as the capacity of stakeholders to exert their will over a department (human resources) in an organization (Guerci and Shani, 2013) and over a project (Boonstra and Govers, 2009). In this paper, power is defined as the capacity of change recipients to exert their will over a change program.

With respect to the level of a change recipient’s power, it has been classified into three levels Mayers (2005) and Savage et al. (1991)) and four levels Bourne (2005). Bourne’s classification of power differentiates between formal and informal power, which is less relevant to this paper, as power is considered as a separate attribute from legitimacy, as explained earlier. In some situations, a stakeholder who has informal power can be perceived by management as occupying a higher level than another stakeholder who has formal power. Savage et al. (1991) categorize levels of stakeholder power into more, equal and less than the management’s level of power, but without defining what each level means. Hence, the three levels of power that are used by Mayers (2005) will be used in this paper because they are clearly defined to distinguish between different levels. Therefore, change recipients hold a high level of power when their power over the change program is such that it can stop the change. A moderate level of power is the extent that change recipients can cause difficulty for change agents to achieve the objective(s) of the change such as delay it, but not stop the change. Otherwise, the power of change recipients is regarded as low (i.e. minimal power over the change). As Mitchell et al. (1997) explain, it is important to note that power in our paper is independent from legitimacy. For example, although a change recipient may have the power to stop a change, the change recipient does not necessarily have the legitimacy to do so.

Levels of legitimacy

The definition of legitimacy in stakeholder salience theory (Mitchell et al., 1997) uses Suchman’s (1995) definition of legitimacy. However, Suchman (1995) states “it will operate differently in different contexts and how it works may depend on the nature of the problems for which it is the purported solution” (p. 573). For instance, in family firms, Mitchell et al. (2011) define legitimacy as “possessing status conferred by birth and/or relationship-based privilege” (p. 244), which is inappropriate in general business cases. Stakeholder salience including legitimacy has been investigated in projects and change programs Boonstra and Govers (2009) and Boonstra (2006) within organizations. These studies use Suchman’s (1995) definition of legitimacy with reference to project or change programs. Suchman’s definition will be used in this paper to define legitimacy and locating the definition in the context of organizational change will be explained in the subsequent paragraphs.

Legitimacy is about a relationship between two entities (Suchman, 1995), which here is between change recipients and a change program. In the context of organizational change, this relationship is about change recipients’ participation in the change. Participation and legitimacy are mirrors of one another. The rationale of participation has one or both moral (humanistic) and pragmatic (instrumental) dimensions (Black and Gregersen, 1997), which are the two main bases of legitimacy (Suchman, 1995). A conceptual framework of participation in organizations developed by Dachler and Wilpert (1978) in which the authors assert the democratic (moral base) and productivity and efficiency (instrumental base) orientations as the dimensions of participation. Participation in organizations can take different forms, which are formal and informal participation, direct and indirect participation and access to decision-making (Dachler and Wilpert, 1978). In the context of organizational change, the final form of participation, which concerns participation in terms of the degree of access to decision-making is what matters most (Judson, 1991; Lines, 2004). In addition, it will provide clear distinctions between levels of participation by change recipients in a change, which will enable the specification of levels of the recipients’ legitimacy to a change program.

Levels of participation in decision-making can range from informing stakeholders to having final decision-making authority (Black and Gregersen, 1997). Change recipients who are not permitted to participate in the change at all (i.e. they are not provided information about the change) can be regarded as disinterested stakeholders. Nevertheless, they may still have power attributes. Therefore, the higher level of change recipient participation in the change, the higher moral and/or pragmatic legitimacy perceived by change managers, and therefore the higher the level of change recipient legitimacy. This paper is concerned with the level of legitimacy a change recipient holds irrespective of what types (bases) of legitimacy are perceived by change managers.

Black and Gregersen (1997, p. 862) and Dachler and Wilpert (1978, p. 14) classify levels of participation to access decision-making into six levels, which are:

1. no (advance) information is given to employees about a decision;

2. employees are informed in advance;

3. employees can give their opinion about the decision to be made;

4. employees’ opinions are taken into account (i.e. vote);

5. employees can negatively or positively veto a decision; and

6. the decision is completely in the hands of the employees.

However, levels one and six in Black and Gregersen (1997) and Dachler and Wilpert (1978) classification are unlikely to be present in the context of radical change. With regard to the former, communicating with change recipients to provide awareness of the change vision and the like are fundamental for change initiators. For the latter, the final decision regarding change is in the hands of top management and/or change agents rather than the recipients. However, although this classification scheme is intended for members within an organization (i.e. employees Dachler and Wilpert (1978)), the same scheme is appropriate for stakeholders (i.e. inform, consult, involve, collaborate and empower) (Bryson, 2004)), which include change recipients.

The decisions that organizational members are permitted to participate in need to be specified (Cordery, 1995). In the context of organizational change, change recipients can participate in the formulation and/or implementation of change (Meyer and Stensaker, 2006; Morris and Raben, 1995). Consequently, the definition of legitimacy by Suchman (1995) is modified here and is understood as the participation of change recipients in the formulation and/or implementation of organizational change where their participation is seen as proper/legitimate/permitted by managers. Subsequently, the four levels in which change recipients’ are permitted to participate in organizational change are:

1. veto a decision regarding the formulation and/or implementation change;

2. have a vote in the decision regarding the formulation and/or implementation change but cannot veto;

3. be asked to give their opinions about a decision regarding the formulation and/or implementation change, but they do not have a vote; and

4. be only informed about a decision regarding the formulation and/or implementation change without giving opinions.

Change recipients are classified as highly legitimate to a change program when they have the right to veto decisions regarding the formulation and/or implementation of the change (Level 1). The next level is moderate legitimacy change recipients who are those permitted to vote in decisions regarding the change (Level 2). When change recipients are not given the right from managers to either veto or vote on decisions regarding the change, they are considered as having a low level of legitimacy (Levels 3 or 4). Table 1 shows definitions of the three classes of change recipients by relating to the levels of power and legitimacy.

Strategies to overcome resistance to change

Several studies offer strategies to deal with change recipients’ resistance to organizational change. These strategies can be classified into nine categories, namely, participation (Auster and Ruebottom, 2013; Caruth et al., 1985; Fuchs and Prouska, 2014; Hon et al., 2014; Joshi, 1991; Judson, 1991; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Pardo-del-Val et al., 2012), education (Caruth et al., 1985; Coch and French, 1948; Judson, 1991; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Velasco and Sansone, 2019), persuasion (Hultman, 1998; Judson, 1991; Nadler, 1993; Rivard and Lapointe, 2012), communication (Auster and Ruebottom, 2013; Caruth et al., 1985; Judson, 1991; Kim and Kankanhalli, 2009), reward (Caruth et al., 1985; Judson, 1991; Morris and Raben, 1995; Nadler, 1993), facilitation (Fiedler, 2010; Judson, 1991; Kim and Kankanhalli, 2009; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Rivard and Lapointe, 2012), negotiation (Falbe and Yukl, 1992; Judson, 1991; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008), manipulation (Battilana and Casciaro, 2013; Caruth et al., 1985; Hultman, 1998; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008) and coercion (Falbe and Yukl, 1992; Hultman, 1998; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Rivard and Lapointe, 2012). The different efficacies of these strategies to minimize resistance to change are based on situational factors such as the time available to implement the change. For instance, when time and monetary resources are not constraints, participation in decision-making, monetary rewards, facilitation in a form of training and education are appropriate (Judson, 1991;Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Morris and Raben, 1995). Otherwise, negotiation and agreement with change recipients, manipulating them and using coercion can be effective (Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977).

Of these strategies of dealing with the resistance of change recipients, participation and coercion are regarded as the least favorable and most favorable strategies to the recipients, respectively, in a spectrum of favorability. However, this paper focuses on these two strategies to deal with change recipients and their resistance by taking into account the salience of change recipients – something that has not been considered in the prior studies discussed earlier.

Participation

The term participation in organizations is defined as involving employees in decision-making processes (Cordery, 1995). In the context of organizational change, scholars (Auster and Ruebottom, 2013; Caruth et al., 1985; Joshi, 1991; Judson, 1991; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Morris and Raben, 1995; Nadler, 1993; Pardo-del-Val et al., 2012) use the same definition of participation (i.e. involving change recipients in decisions regarding the change). These authors report that change recipients’ participation in a change program is an effective strategy to deal with their resistance. However, not all forms of participation reduce resistance. For instance, when the participants do not perceive that their ideas are considered by change managers, then their participation may intensify their resistance rather than reducing it Judson (1991). Therefore, participation is defined here as involving change recipients in the change to the extent that they have a vote on decisions with regard to formulation and/or implementation of the change. In this paper, the terms participation and involvement are used interchangeably.

However, along with its benefits, participation has its disadvantages. It is time consuming and managers need to involve many of those who are affected by the change (Carnall, 2007; Morris and Raben, 1995). Therefore, the participation of every member can be problematic particularly when time is restricted, as is the case in organizational re-creation. A further disadvantage of participation is that it gives people control over decisions regarding the change (Morris and Raben, 1995), which will if they are against the change, lead to unfortunate results. In organizational re-creation, change managers will not have the time to involve all recipients of the change. Therefore, classifying change recipients based on their salience is beneficial in this regard. It enables change managers to harness the influence of change recipients on the change.

As definitive change recipients have the power to stop the change and possess legitimacy to the extent that they can at least vote on decisions of the change. They already have control over the change; and therefore, their participation in the change is not only fundamental for participation’s sake but also as a way of respecting their legitimacy. Hence, the lack of involvement in the change will somehow diminish their legitimacy in the change, which leads to the resistance that negatively affects the success of the change. Participation has been defined earlier in this section, so lack of participation is not involving change recipients in the change to the extent that they can vote on decisions regarding the formulation and/or implementation of the change.

H1.

Lack of involvement of definitive change recipients in the change is positively related to change derailment.

Notwithstanding the lack of participation, those who are expectant change recipients may increase their resistance, where they are unable to prevent the change from taking place. They may have the power to stop the change, but concurrently not the legitimacy to do so. Therefore, involving this type of change recipients – who are resistors to change – can give them more control over the change (Morris and Raben, 1995), which, besides the power they hold, will put them in a position to derail the change. In other words, involving these recipients will let them gain more legitimacy, which will move them from expectant to definitive change recipients. Alternately, expectant change recipients may have the legitimacy to veto decisions regarding the change, but lack power that can stop the change. By not involving those who belong to this type of recipients, change managers neglect the recipients’ legitimacy, which allows the recipients to at least vote on decisions regarding the change. However, due to the lack of power these change recipients have over the change, they are, even if they resist the change, unable to stop the change.

H2.

Lack of involvement of expectant change recipients in the change does not lead to change derailment.

The third class within change recipients’ salience is latent change recipients who lack both the power to stop the change and the legitimacy to vote on its decisions. Their involvement in the change will increase their legitimacy to the change, which will move them to the upper class (i.e. expectant change recipients). However, their power over the change still cannot stop it. Consequently, their participation in the change will be beneficial as it will reduce their resistance to change but concurrently they are unable to derail the change. However, the main disadvantage of their involvement is that it consumes time when it is restricted in times of organizational re-creation. Hence, change managers will not be able to involve all the recipients of change and, therefore, although not involving latent change recipients may increase their resistance, they are unable to make it unsuccessful.

H3.

Lack of involvement of latent change recipients in the change does not lead to change derailment.

Coercion

Coercion as a strategy to mitigate resistance to change can be the only solution in some circumstances (Hultman, 1998; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). Scholars define coercion as an implicit and/or explicit form of forcing people to adopt change such as a threat to dismiss them (Hultman, 1998; Judson, 1991; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Rivard and Lapointe, 2012; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). When time is restricted and all other strategies of mitigating resistance are consumed, coercion can be used to overcome resistance (Hultman, 1998; Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008; Zaltman and Duncan, 1977). Rivard and Lapointe (2012) emphasize the importance of the credibility of the way management use coercion as a lack of credibility can intensify resistance instead of reducing it. Nevertheless, coercion can be regarded as immoral, and therefore, it is not practical to use (Judson, 1991). The term coercion in this paper refers to explicit rather than implicit coercion (Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008). Unlike implicit coercion, explicit coercion refers to informing change recipients of the possible consequences of not complying with change such as the threat of dismissal and not being eligible for promotions. By referring to different types of change recipients outlined earlier in this paper, three hypotheses regarding using coercion with change recipients are developed by noting that change here means organizational re-creation where time is pressing.

Definitive change recipients, as defined earlier, have the ability to stop the change and/or veto decisions regarding it. Once this group resists a given change, they are able to work on their strengths, and therefore, the change may not happen (take place). Like powerful stakeholders who are able to “withhold” their resources (Frooman, 1999, p. 196), definitive change recipients can stop a change from happening. Hence, if their resistance is not treated at a level that reaches their satisfaction, then unfortunate results will occur. As coercion is the least favorable and can be immoral (Judson, 1991), using any form of coercion with definitive change recipients will cause unsuccessful change. In fact, measuring the success of a change is problematic (Carnall, 2007). However, it is important to note that the meaning of successful and unsuccessful change (change failure) here is the one defined early in this paper.

H4.

Using coercive strategies with definitive change recipients is positively related to change derailment.

The next level of salience is expectant change recipients. The resistance of this group causes difficulties to change managers. However, the recipients belonging to this level lack simultaneously the power to prevent the change and the legitimacy to veto or vote on decisions regarding it. Hence, although forcing this category of recipients may increase their resistance, they are unable to prevent the implementation of the change. Instead, these change recipients can delay the implementation of the change and force some alterations of the objectives of the change.

H5.

Using coercion strategies with expectant change recipients does not lead to change derailment.

The third level of salience refers to those who lack both power and legitimacy over the change (i.e. latent change recipients), and therefore, their ability to influence the change is minimal. Their actions are neither legitimate to the extent that they can vote on decisions about the change, nor cause a barrier to the implementation of the change. Hence, when change managers encounter resistance from recipients of this class, using coercion to overcome their resistance will not cause the change to derail:

H6.

Using coercion strategies with latent change recipients does not lead to change derailment.

Independent, dependent and control variables

There are two independent variables of the model introduced previously. They are the lack of involvement and the coercion strategies used for dealing with change recipients. As explained in earlier sections, lack of involvement is defined as not including change recipients in the change to the extent they have a vote on decisions with regard to formulation and/or implementation of the change. Coercion is defined as explicit use of forces by informing change recipients of the possible consequences of not complying with change such as the threat of dismissal and/or not being eligible for promotions.

The dependent variable is the effect of the independent variable in which in the case of our framework is change derailment. As defined earlier, it is the situation where change falls apart. In other words, change is considered as derailed when it has not occurred and the intended aims are not met.

The salience levels of change recipients represent control variables. The salience of change recipients is measured by the levels of power and legitimacy they have in relation to change. As indicated in Table 1, the combination of three levels of power and four levels of legitimacy constitutes three salience levels of change recipients, namely, definitive, expectant and latent recipients. These levels moderate the relationships between lack of involvement and coercion strategies and change derailment. The organizational context (i.e. re-creation type of change) in which the framework is tested constitutes a further control variable. Re-creation types of change share common characteristics, which are radical and unplanned. The definition of each characteristic is reported in types of organizational change section of the paper.

Conclusion

The necessity of organizations to change and prosper is undeniable. In the meantime, managing change is challenging, particularly in times of organizational re-creation. Despite the strategies to deal with change recipients’ resistance that have been explored, there is a scarcity of studies that investigate change recipients with regard to their salience to the change. As time is restricted in an organizational re-creation context, prioritizing change recipients enables change managers to attend to the needs of the most important recipients of the change. To address this issue, stakeholder salience theory is used to develop a framework that combines three classes of change recipients’ salience, as well as the effects of two strategies to deal with them and their resistance (i.e. lack of involvement and coercion) to examine their influence on change derailment. The potential contribution will expand the current literature discussed in this paper about dealing with change recipients’ resistance to change. To empirically test the framework, research should adopt a survey methodology to gather data from organizations that experience a re-creation change as defined in this paper. The unit of analysis for future research is described in this paper and it is how organizational re-creation is defined in this paper. Like any research, the purpose is to enrich the understanding of existing theory; “the field of management will not advance without it” (Hambrick, 2007, p. 1346). The results will expand the understanding of stakeholder salience theory by explaining how the theory functions in the context of organizational re-creation. Furthermore, change managers will be able to use participation and coercion as strategies to deal with change recipients that are appropriate to the different salience classes of recipients.

Figures

Figure 1.

Types of organizational change

Figure 2.

The effects of lack of involvement and coercion methods on different levels of change recipients’ salience and change derailment

Table 1.

Definitions of classes of change recipients’ salience

Classes of change recipients’ salience	Power	Legitimacy
Definitive change recipients	Stop the change Or Stop the change Or Delay the change	And  Veto decisions of the change And  Vote on decisions of the change And  Veto decisions of the change
Expectant change recipients	Stop the change Or Delay the change Or Minimal power (i.e. neither stop nor delay the change)	And  Giving opinions or only informed about the change And  Vote on decisions of the change And  Veto decisions of the change
Latent change recipients	Delay the change Or Minimal power Or Minimal power	And  Giving opinions or only informed about the change And  Vote on decisions of the change And  Giving opinions or only informed about the change

Source: Author