Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 5 (2010) 1794–1798

WCPCG-2010

A positive approach to stress, resistance, and organizational change

Mahin Tavakolia * F

a
Department of Psychology, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Canada

Received January 17, 2010; revised February 6, 2010; accepted March 9, 2010

Abstract

The literature of organizational change is dominated by the idea that stress and resistance are two independent
phenomena, and that they are immediate and natural reactions to organizational change. This paper suggests a model
of organizational change that views the stress as a mediator between organizational change and resistance to change.
According to this model, stress and resistance are not inevitable reactions to organizational change. Rather, what
makes organizational change stressful or susceptible to resistance of employees is the way people are treated during
implementation of the change. The model introduces strategies for reducing negative stress and resistance, and for
increasing positive stress and positive health outcomes among employees adapting to change.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.

Keywords: Organizational change; organizational stress; resistance to organizational change; positive psychology; organizational psychology.

1. Introduction

Since the 1980s, change has become a dominant aspect of organizational life (Dupuy, 2002). Downsizing,
mergers, innovations in management and in technology, and shifts in the location, time, duration, quality and
quantity of tasks and responsibilities are some of the organizational changes that have radically affected work life
(e.g., Vecchio & Appelbaum, 1995). Such rapid changes have increased stress among managers and employees
(Gibbsons, 1998). Various health or behavioural problems are reported as a result of stress in organizational change
(Lindstrom, 1990). Recognition of increased organizational stress and its possible correlates with mental health has
stimulated many investigations of the adverse effects of stress at the workplace and how much of the stress might be
caused by organizational change (e.g., Hansen, 2001). In the 1950s, Kurt Lewin introduced the idea that people
resist organizational change. Since then researchers and theorists have devoted a considerable effort to study
resistance as an immediate response to organizational change (e.g., Shulman, 1982). This response is considered as
a barrier to organizational change, leading to many problems such as tension, low satisfaction with work life, and
sometimes the complete failure of the proposed organizational change (e.g., Trice & Beyer, 2001).
However, an emerging approach to social and organizational psychology encourages us to recognize the positive
aspects of work (Turner, Barling, & Zacharatos, 2001), which can be applied to the study of organizational change.

* Mahin Tavakoli. Tel.: 1-613-5202600 (ext: 4578).

E-mail address: mtkhomei@connect.carleton.ca.

1877-0428 © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.07.366
 Mahin Tavakoli / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 5 (2010) 1794–1798 1795

The positive approach strives to develop nurturing organizations and institutions that create positive experiences like
joy, hope, and devotion (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). This paper focuses on the positive approach and
attempts to illustrate that the organizational environment can prevent or reduce negative effects of organizational
change, and can produce constructive affect and behaviours if the environment affords some positive actions.

2. Stress as a positive stimulus

Stress is an inevitable component of everyday life and puts demands on mind and body. Selye (1993)
distinguished bad stress from good stress by labeling them as distress and eustress, or stress of fulfillment.
Considering the possible positive effects of stress on human beings lives, Selye proposed maximizing the eustress
components of life rather than avoiding stress. Although stress may have an adaptive and motivational role in the
lives of human beings, and despite the enormous number of studies on the negative effects of job stress, there are
only a few examples of generating or maximizing the eustress of organizational life, especially eustress related to
organizational change. Beyond a few studies (e.g., Werbel, 1983) that suggest higher levels of organizational
commitment, mental health, physical health, self-confidence, and self-esteem as some of positive responses to job
stress, research on the potential of organizational change to create eustress is scarce.

3. The Positive nature of resistance

Research on organizational change have approached resistance from two opposite perspectives; one viewing
resistance as a destructive force in any situation (e.g., Cummings & Huse, 1989), and the other viewing resistance as
a positive force (e.g., Perren, 1996). The idea of an absolute positive resistance seems to be an extreme reaction to
the more prevalent idea of resistance as wholly negative. I propose a third approach suggesting that resistance to
organizational change is problematic in many circumstances, but may be rooted in positive aspects of human nature.
I define resistance as “a behavioural reaction or symptom of distress, intended to reduce distress level”. According
to this definition, resistance has three positive functions: (1) Resistance as a symptom similar to a pain signals that
there is something wrong and warns people to attend to the problems behind it. (2) It serves to manage or control the
distress coming from change. (3) Resistance can be a result of employees’ commitment to their current status, tasks,
and groups. For example, a feeling of contentment in one’s current work situation (Lewis, 1975), and of attachment
can affect people’s preferences for their current job activities and inhibit them from accepting new activities (Staw,
1982). Much resistance is driven by basic socio-psychological needs for security consistency, predictability, and
stability in life (Trice & Beyer, 2001),). It is possible to provide arrangements that facilitate employees’ transition
from an accepted current status to a new and challenging one, by not threatening employees’ basic human needs
during challenges of organizational change. To manage such transitions in organizations, in the following section a
model is proposed in which resistance is seen as a product of the ways in which change is introduced to employees.

4. An integrative model of organizational change, stress, and resistance

Generally, stress and resistance have been viewed as two immediate and negative reactions to organizational
change. Most of the literature portrays managers as if they are always trapped in a no-win situation. From one side,
they are under pressure to make organizational changes to adjust and survive in the changing world. From the other
side, they try to alleviate their own distress, often by putting employees under distress, which often generates bad
feelings, bitterness, resentment, and employees’ resistance to change. Taking the complexities of organizational
change, can it be accomplished without harming employees and managers? What kinds of actions can be taken to
protect employees and managers from distress and to fulfill the objectives of organizational change?
With an emphasis on the positive capacity of organizational change, and acknowledging the potential positive
and adverse effects of stress of organizational change, I propose a model of organizational change and stress that
suggests the process of implementing changes that do not always negatively influence managers and the employees.
This model views organizational change is viewed as a two-sided coin, with each side producing different situations.
From one side, organizational change may lead to distress and resistance. From the other side, change may produce
eustress and positive reactions of employees to the organizational change. The processes through which distress and
eustress are generated and the outcomes of distress and eustress are illustrated in Figure 1.
1796 Mahin Tavakoli / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 5 (2010) 1794–1798

Organizational
(a) Change

(f)
Negative
Perceptions Positive Actions:
or Fears of:
Loss Participation
Threat Benefit Finding
(h)
Ambiguity Organizational Justice
Job Insecurity Communication

(g)
Work Overload Support
Lack of Control Training
Unpredictability

Promoting
Cognitive
(e)

Coping (i)

(m)
Change
Abilities

(j)
Eustress
Distress

(k)
(l)
(d)

(c)

Positive
Responses:
Behavioural Reactions: Health
Cooperation
Resistance Challenge
Growth
Flow
Joy
Productivity

Figure 1. The Integrative Model of Organizational Change, Stress, and Resistance

According to the integrative model of organizational change and stress (see Figure 1), the processes and
conditions which result in distress, eustress, and their outcomes include:
(a) Organizational change, without any positive actions or methods taken by the managers, may primarily lead to
negative thoughts and feelings including perceptions or fears of loss, threat, ambiguity, job insecurity, work
overload, lack of control, and/or unpredictability (e.g., Hansen, 2001).
(b) Accompanying the negative perceptions and fears are distress reactions (Kahn & Byosiere, 1990). Distress
reactions can be physiological, emotional, cognitive, and behavioural (Lokk & Arnetz, 1997).
(c) The model proposes that distress and resistance are two interconnected phenomena. Resistance to change is
part of behavioural reactions of such distress. This is the first model of organizational change to explicitly make this
connection. Cummings and Huse (1989) make a vague connection between stress and resistance by saying that
people feel job insecurity during organizational change and find it stressful; often uncooperative behaviours and
resistance against change are reactions to feelings of job insecurity. However, Cummings and Huse do not mention
any direct connection between stress and resistance. Kahn and Byosiere (1990) acknowledge stress as the source of
disequilibrium in the workplace. But, instead of paying attention to the reason underlying resistance, which is
distress, they focus on symptoms of resistance for reducing resistance.
Research on behavioural reactions to distress gives insight with regard to their similarities to resistance. Some
behavioural reactions of stress are: violence and other antisocial acts, self-reports of aggressive traits, and strikes
(e.g., Belbin & Stammers, 1972; Bedeian, Armenakis, & Curran, 1980; Spector, 1997). Other counterproductive
behaviours include spreading rumours, doing inferior work on purpose, stealing from employer, damaging property,
equipment, or products on purpose, damaging property accidentally but not reporting, disrupted performance of
social role as citizen, and accidents (Lesowitz, 1996; Sutherland & Cooper, 1991). Some of cognitive and emotional
reactions of distress also seem to be similar to the cognitive and emotional state of resistance. This similarity seems
 Mahin Tavakoli / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 5 (2010) 1794–1798 1797

to be suggestive of the common essence of resistance and distress. For example, a tendency to focus on the negative
while degrading the positive, rigid thinking patterns, and obsessive thinking are some of many cognitive reactions of
distress (Quillian-Wolever & Wolever, 2003) that may be involved in resistance, as well. In the same way, anxiety,
irritation, and frustration are some emotional reactions to distress (Warr, 1987).
(d) According to the model, the relationship between distress and resistance may not end at this point; the model
suggests that after resistance appears, it can often continue to raise the level of distress in the organization in a
vicious cycle (see Figure 1). Cummings and Huse (1989) assert that lack of information will stimulate rumours
among stressed employees and that rumours will almost always result in more tension and anxiety. A survey by
Northwestern National Life Insurance Company (1993) about workplace violence showed a relationship between
job stress and violence and suggested stress could be both a cause and an effect of violence.
(e) Therefore, the negative consequences of resistance affect organizational change negatively.
(f) Organizational change is not preordained to produce distress and resistance. In order to prevent distress and
resistance, organizations can adopt methods and actions that help employees believe they have ability, skill, power,
or knowledge to cope with the situation. These methods can improve employees coping skills, encourage a positive
reframing of the change, or at least prevent viewing the change as threatening. Some of the methods are: (I)
Participative organizational change encourages active involvement of employees in decision-making about the
process of organizational change (Schraeder, 2001). (II) Benefit finding in change requires managers clearly talk to
employees about the anticipated gains and whether the gains outweigh the losses (Trice & Beyer, 2001). (III)
Organizational justice concerns the way managers treat employees during organizational change (Lind & Tyler,
1988). (IV) Honest and clear communication refers to providing employees with accurate, detailed, and timely
information about the change, its consequences, and about how to cope with the change (Lewis, 1975). (V)
Supportive organization refers to a work environment that protects employees from the hassles of organizational
change (Smith, 1997). (VI) Training refers to equipping employees with skills and knowledge required for adapting
to the organization during and after implementation of the change (Smith, 1997).
(g) The model suggests that these positive actions or methods can change negative perceptions or appraisals of
employees. A cognitive change may be achieved by using these methods to address and change their negative
thoughts directly. Provision of useful information through communication or through application of benefit finding,
which help people realize if the positive consequences of an organizational change overweigh the negative
consequences, are examples of methods that may directly lead to a cognitive change.
(h) These positive actions (e.g., training or supportive workplace) can also promote employees’ coping abilities.
(i) Improved coping abilities may facilitate cognitive change in employees. For example, a strong feeling of self-
efficacy resulting from training may lead to perceiving the event as not threatening or as positive (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984).
(j) Eustress is consequence of such cognitive changes.
(k) The model suggests that positive responses to change, such as improved health, willingness, cooperation with
organizational change, and feelings of challenge, growth, and joy can be some primary results of this situation.
Accompanied by these positive responses may be productivity.
(l) These positive responses of employees may contribute to a higher level of eustress. In addition, the positive
responses may positively affect organizational change.
(m) The basic assumption underlying the proposed model is that in the same way that negative reactions are a
result of negative perceptions about outcomes of organizational change, the positive responses may result from
positive appraisals of events. Lazarus (1991) analyses stress in terms of interaction between environmental stressors
and individuals’ perception or appraisal of environmental stressors. This perspective introduces individuals’
perceptions or interpretations of a situation as a major determinant of negative or positive emotional reactions to that
situation. Lazarus (1969) asserts the perception or appraisal might include how the individual perceives the threats,
potential harms, challenges, and perception of her or his own capability to cope with them.

5. Conclusion

The literature on the methods of stress and change management has focused more attention on the relationship
between organizational change and resistance, and there is insufficient research on the relationship between
organizational change and stress. Most likely, this is not because the researchers find stress of organizational change
less important than resistance to organizational change, but rather because research on resistance is more concrete
and simple, and thus it is easier to examine. The research on organizational changes that elicit positive feelings is
1798 Mahin Tavakoli / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 5 (2010) 1794–1798

also scarce. In sum, the basic idea underlying positive organizational change is that if the employees are taken
seriously and if they are respected, they will blossom and their power will be oriented toward success of change
plans, as well as toward an enjoyable work life. Managers who understand the psychological aspects of
organizational change can better plan what methods be used, when they be used, how they be used, and under what
specific conditions they may lead to more positive results. Yet, positive organizational changes, in many situations,
rely on managers’ creativity, enthusiasm, improvisation, exploration, and enterprise. Finding creative ways of
implementing organizational changes that motivate positive responses of employees is a worthwhile challenge.

References

Bedeian, A. G., Armenakis, A. A., & Curran, S. M. (1980). Personality correlates of role stress. Psychological Reports, 46, 627-632.
Belbin, R. M., & Stammers, D. (1972). Pacing stress, human adaptation, and training in car production. Applied Ergonomics, 3, 142-146.
Cummings, T. G., & Huse, E. F. (1989). Organization development and change. St. Paul: West Publishing Company.
Dohrenwend, B. S., & Pearlin, L. (1981). Report of the panel on life events. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine.
Dupuy, F. (2002). The chemistry of change: Problems, phases and strategy. New York: Palgrave.
Gibson, J., Ivancevich, J. M., & Donelly, J. (1988). Organizations: Behaviour, structure, processes (6th ed.). Plano, TX: Business Publications.
Hansen, M. J. A. (2001). Individual reactions to a large-scale organizational change in a healthcare organization (Doctoral dissertation, Loyola
University of Chicago, 2001). Dissertation Abstracst International, B 62/05.
Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1990). Stress in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and
organizational psychology (2nd ed.), V. 3 (pp. 571-650). Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Lazarus, R. S. (1969). Patterns of adjustment and human effectiveness. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819-834.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lesowitz, T. E. (1996). Job-related stress, organizational stress, and non-work stress as predictors of job satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, De
Paul University, 1997), Dissertation Abstracts International, B 57/10.
Lewis, P. V. (1975). Organizational communication: The essence of effective management (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York & London: Plenum.
Lindstrom, K., & Huuhtanen, P. (1993). Managing organizational and social change processes in banks. Paper presented at the 6th European
congress on Work and Organizational Psychology, Alicante, Spain.
Lokk, J., & Arnetz, B. (1997). Psycho-physiological concomitants of organizational change in health care personnel: Effects of a controlled
intervention study. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 66, 74-77.
Meglino, B. M., DeNisi, A. S., Youngblood, S. A, & Williams, K. J. (1988). Effects of realistic job previews: a comparison using enhancement
and a reduction preview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 259-266.
Northwestern National Life-Insurance Company (1993). Fear and violence in the workplace: A survey documenting the experience of American
workers. Minneapolis, MN: Author.
Perren, L. (1996). Resistance to change as a positive force: Its dynamics and issues for management development. Career Development
International, 1(4), 24-28.
Quillian-Wolever, R. E., & Wolever, M. E. (2003). Stress management at work. In J.C. Quick & L.E. Tetrick (Eds.), Handbook of occupational
health psychology (pp. 355-375). WA: American Psychological Association.
Schraeder, M. A. (2001). An analysis of employee attitudes, reactions to events related to a strategic alliance, and reactions to technological
changes (Doctoral dissertation, Auburn, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, A 62/10.Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M.
(2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Selye, H. (1993). History and present status of the stress concept. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz (Eds.), Handbook of stress (2nd ed.) (pp. 7-17).
New York: Free Press.
Shulman, L. (1982). Skills of supervision and employee management. CA: Peacoak Publishers.
Smith, M. (1997). Psychological aspects of working with video display terminals (VDTs) and employee physical and mental health. Ergonomics,
40, 1002-1015.
Spector, P. E. (1997). The role of frustration in antisocial behavior at work. In R.A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behaviour in
organizations (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Staw, B. M. (1982). Counterforces to change. In P.S. Goodman et al. (Eds.), Change in organizations (pp. 87-122). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sutherland, V. J., & Cooper, C. L. (1991). Stress and accidents offshore. Houstone: Gulf.
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (2001). Changing organizational cultures, In J. M. Shafritz, & J. S. Ott (Eds.), Classics of organization theory (pp.
125-137). Fourth Worth: Harcourt College Publishers.
Turner, N., Barling J., & Zacharatos, A. (2001). Positive psychology at work. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive
psychology (pp. 345-357). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vecchio, R. P., & Appelbaum, S. H. (1995). Managing organizational behaviour. Toronto: Dryden.
Warr, P. B. (1987). Work, unemployment, and mental health. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Werbel, J. D. (1983). Job change: A study of an acute job stressor. Jornal of Vocational Behaviour, 23(2), 242-250.