Resistência a mudança: uma revisão crítica

ORGANIZAÇÕES

Resistência a mudança: uma revisão crítica

José Mauro da Costa Hernandez^I; Miguel P. Caldas^II

^IAdministrador de Empresas pela FEA-USP, Mestre em Administração de Empresas pela FEA-USP e Doutorando em Administração de Empresas pela FGV-EAESP. E-mail: [e-mail]

^IIAdministrador de Empresas pela UNB, Mestre e Doutor em Administração de Empresas pela FGV-EAESP, Professor do Departamento de Administração Geral e Recursos Humanos da FGV-EAESP e Consultor de Empresas. E-mail: [e-mail]

RESUMO

Ao implementar mudanças ou inovações, as organizações, muitas vezes, têm de enfrentar resistências internas. Por ser a resistência à mudança um dos tópicos mais estudados no campo organizacional, temos sido induzidos a crer que sabemos tudo a seu respeito. Se sabemos tanto, por que a resistência ainda é uma das principais barreiras à transformação organizacional? Neste artigo, tentamos responder a essa indagação questionando os modelos predominantes de resistência e pondo em dúvida os pressupostos das diversas "receitas" recomendadas para lidar com a resistência. Nossa proposição é que tais "receitas" não são de grande ajuda porque estão embasadas em um modelo de resistência construído sob diversos pressupostos discutíveis, segundo os quais a resistência é: a) uma circunstância inevitável; b) nociva à organização; c) um comportamento natural dos seres humanos; d) um comportamento exibido exclusivamente por empregados; e) um fenômeno massificado. Usando contrapressupostos para cada uma dessas premissas clássicas e utilizando a Psicologia da Percepção, o estudo propõe um novo Modelo de Resistência Individual à Mudança. Esse modelo de sete estágios procura representar o processo de percepção individual durante a mudança organizacional, desde a exposição ao estímulo até a adoção de um dado comportamento. Implicações para a teoria e a prática, limitações do modelo e sugestões para pesquisa futura são também apresentadas.

Palavras-chave: Resistência à mudança, mudança organizacional, percepção, cognição, organização.

ABSTRACT

When implementing changes and innovations, organizations often have to deal with resistance to change. Maybe because few subjects pertaining to organizational transformation are so broadly and consistently covered in the popular literature, we may have been induced to believe we must know all about it. If we know so much, why resistance is still a major barrier to organizational transformation, and why so many change agents still strive to overcome it? In this article, we attempt to respond this question by questioning the predominant models of resistance and the assumptions of the several "recipe-oriented" approaches to deal with resistance in organizations. Our understanding is that such "recipes" are not particularly helpful because they use a model of resistance to change that was built upon several questionable assumptions, according to which resistance is a) a "natural", inevitable fact; b) malignant to the organization; c) employee-driven; and d) collective. Based on counter-assumptions to each of these widespread premises and on Psychology of Perception, a new Model of Individual Resistance to Change is proposed. The model represents the individual's perceptual process during organizational change, from exposure to stimuli until behavior adoption. The seven-stage model culminates in four possible outcomes: resistance, resistance overcoming, indecision, or change adoption. Implications for theory and practice, limitations of the model and suggestions for future development are presented.

Key words: Resistance to change, organizational change, perception, cognition, organization.

Texto completo disponível apenas em PDF.

Full text available only in PDF format.

NOTA

Versões preliminares deste artigo foram apresentadas no Enanpad 2000 (área de Recursos Humanos) e na reunião anual de 2000 da Academy of Management (MC Division/ ODC Division).

• ABBASI, S. M., HOLLMAN, K. W. Inability to adapt: the hidden flaw of managerial ineptness. Records Management Quartely, v. 27, n. 1, p. 22-25, 1993.
• AGÓCS, C. Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: denial, inaction and repression. Journal of Business Ethics, Dordrecht, v. 16, n. 9, p. 917-931, 1997.
• BAGOZZI, R. P., LEE, K. Consumer resistance to, and acceptance of, innovations. In: ARNOULD, E. J., SCOTT, L. M. (Eds.). Advances in Consumer Research, v. 26, p. 218- 225, 1999.
• BELK, Russel W. Situational variables and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, Chicago, v. 2, n. 3, p. 157-164, Dec. 1975.
• BOYLE, R. D. Avoiding common pitfalls of reengineering. Management Accounting, Montvale, v. 77, n. 4, p. 24-30, 1995.
• BRAVER, N. Overcoming resistance to TQM. Research- Technology Management, Washington, v. 38, n. 5, p. 40- 44, 1995.
• BROWN, R., WILLIAMS, J. Group identification: the same thing to all people?Human Relations, New York, v. 37, n. 7, p. 547-564, 1984.
• BURKE, W. W. Organization development: a normative view Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley, 1987.
• CANTOR, N., MISCHEL, W. Prototypes in person perceptions. In: BERKOWITZ, L. (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology New York : Academic Press,1979. V. 12, p. 3-52.
• CHILDERS, Terry L., HOUSTON, M., HECKLER, S. Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing. Journal of Consumer Research, Chicago, v. 12, n. 2, p. 125-134, Sept. 1985.
• COCH, L., FRENCH JR., J. R. P. Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, New York, v. 1, n. 4, p. 512-532, 1948.
• COGHLAN, D. A person-centred approach to dealing with resistance to change. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, v. 14, n. 4, p. 10-14, 1993.
• COHEN, J. B., BASU, K. Alternative models of categorization: toward a contingent processing framework. Journal of Consumer Research, Chicago, v. 13, n. 4, p. 455-472, Mar. 1987.
• CONNER, D. R. Managing change: a business imperative. Business Quarterly, v. 58, n. 1, p. 88-92, Autumm 1993.
• DENT, E. B., GOLDBERG, S. G. Challenging resistance to change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Thousand Oaks, v. 35, n.1, p. 25-41, 1999.
• GOFFMAN, E. Stigma Hardmon : Penguin, 1968.
• GREENHALGH, L., ROSENBLATT, Z. Job insecurity: toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, Briarcliff Manor, v. 9, n. 3, p. 438-448, 1984.
• HARTMAN, C. L., PRICE, L. L., DUNCAN, C. P. Consumer evaluation of franchise extension products: a categorization processing perspective. In: GOLDBERG, M. E. et al. (Eds.). Advances in Consumer Research, v. 17, p. 120-127, 1990.
• HAZAN, E. Deregulation: the show goes on. Transmission & Distribution World, v. 50, n. 3, p. 49-56, 1998.
• HOLPP, L. 10 reasons why Total Quality is less than total. Training, v. 26, n. 10, p. 93,1989.
• ISKATT, G. J., LIEBOWITZ , J. What to do when employees resist change. Supervision, v. 57, n. 8, p. 3-5, 1996.
• JOSHI, K. A model of users perspective on change: the case of information systems technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, Minneapolis, v.15, n. 2, p. 229-242, 1991.
• KOTTER, J. P. Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, Boston, v. 73, n. 2, p. 59-67, Mar.1995.
• KOTTER, J. P., SCHLESINGER, L. A. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, Boston, v. 57, n. 2, p. 106-113, Mar./Apr. 1979.
• KRAMER, R. M. Organizational identification and cooperation. In: MURNIGHAN, K. (Ed.). Social psychology in organizations: advances in theory and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall, 1993.
• KURTZ, P., DUNCAN, A. Shared service centres: overcoming resistance to implementation of a shared service centre. Management Accounting, Montvale, v. 76, n. 7, p. 47-48, 1998.
• LAPLANTE, A. Resistance to change can obstruct computing strategy. InfoWorld, v. 13, n. 23, p. S59-S63, 1991.
• LAWRENCE, P. R. How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, Boston, v. 32, n. 3, p. 49-57, 1954.
• LEVINE, M. M., MURPHY, G. The learning and forgetting of controversial material. Journal Abn. Sociology and Psychology, v. 38, p. 507-517, 1943.
• LEWIN, K. Frontiers in group dynamics. Human Relations, New York, v. 1, n. 1, p. 5-41, 1947.
• LEWIN, K. Field theory in social science. New York : Harper and Row, 1951.
• LIPTON, M. When clients resist change. Journal of Management Consulting, v. 9, n. 2, p. 16-21, 1996.
• LIU, C. K. Pitfalls of Total Quality Management in Hong Kong. Total Quality Management, v. 9, n. 7, p. 585-598, 1998.
• MAURER, R. Transforming resistance: using resistance to make change happen. Human Resources Professional, v. 10, n. 6, p. 3-6, 1997.
• MILLER, R. L., CANGEMI, J. P. Why Total Quality Management fails: perspective of top management. Journal of Management Development, v. 12, n. 7, p. 40-50, 1993.
• POE, C. D., VIATOR, R. E. What to do when employees resist automation. Journal of Accounting and EDP, v. 5, n. 4, p. 9- 14, 1990.
• ROGERS, E. M. Diffusion of innovations New York : The Free Press, 1962.
• ROGERS, E. M., SHOEMAKER, F. F. Communication of innovations: a cross-cultural approach New York : The Free Press, 1971.
• ROSCH, E. On the internal structure of perceptual and semantic categories. In: MOORE, T. E. (Ed.). Cognitive development and the acquisition of language New York : Academic Press, 1973. p. 111-144.
• ROSENBLATT, Z., RUVIO, A. A test of multidimensional model of job insecurity: the case of Israeli teachers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, West Sussex, v. 17, p. 587- 605, Dec. 1996. Special issue.
• SCHIFFMAN, L., KANUK, L. Consumer behavior. 4. ed. New Jersey : Prentice-Hall, 1991.
• SMITH, K. K. Groups in conflict: prisons in disguise. Dubuque, Iowa : Kendall/Hunt Pub. Co., 1982.
• SMITH, E. W., MEDIN, D. L. Categories and concepts Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press, 1981.
• SMITH, J. D., NELSON, D. G. K. Overall similarity in adults classification: the child in all of us. Journal of Experimental Psychology, v. 113, n. 1, p.137-139, 1984.
• SPREITZER, G. M., QUINN, R. E. Empowering middle managers to be transformational leaders. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Thousand Oaks, v. 32, n. 3, p. 237- 261, 1996.
• TAJFEL, H. Social psychology of intergroup relations. In: ROSENWEIG, M. R., PORTER, L. W. (Eds.). Annual Review of Psychology, Palo Alto, CA, v. 33, p. 1-39, 1982. Annual Reviews.
• WATSON, G. Resistance to change. In: BENNIS, W. G. et al. (Eds.). The planning of change. New York : Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969.
• WATSON, G. Resistance to change. American Behavioral Scientist, Thousand Oaks, v.14, p. 745, May 1971.
• WYER, R. S., SRULL, T. K. Category accessibility: some theoretical and empirical issues concerning the processing of social stimulus information. In: HIGGINS, E. et al. (Eds.). Social cognition: the Ontario Symposium, v. 1, p. 161. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981.
• ZALTMAN, G., DUNCAN, R. Strategies for planned change New York : Wiley & Sons, 1977.
• ZANDER, A. F. Resistance to change: its analysis and prevention. Advanced Management, New York, v. 4, n. 5, p. 9-11, 1950.

Datas de Publicação

• Publicação nesta coleção
  19 Set 2011
• Data do Fascículo
  Jun 2001