please write a short response that summarizes the questions/issues explored in the readings, and identify at least one key insight that you learned.

Here attached some sample answers:

1. The first article, “Challenging ‘Resistance to Change'”, illustrates a mental model that is generally accepted by all classes but will cause the company to fall into chaos, inefficiency and affect the success of the change: the idea that there is resistance to change and that managers must overcome it. However, this model affects the understanding of change dynamics. Because change is complicated, one should not think about it simply. Managers should consider more comprehensively. The author also proposed the possibility of replacement. This mental model should be abandoned and a more useful dynamic change model should be considered.

The second article, “Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story”, proposes that resistance has two sides and emphasizes the positive side. At the same time, the author proposes that if the change agent contributes resistance through their own actions and inactions, then this resistance may become a help in the change. In this regard, the author also expanded this idea by analyzing relevant cases.

In the third reading, “An affect-based model of recipients’ responses to organizational change events”, the author focuses on the experience and reflection of change recipients, rather than the actions of change agents. All along, people think that the receiver of change is in a passive position to face the change. However, the affect-based model is proposed here, how to organize the change through the reaction of the receiver of the change in the active position. In the article, the author divides the receiver’s response into different types, and the resistance of change is one of them. Meanwhile, the first step in the success of change is to shorten the psychological gap between change recipients and change.

These three articles discuss the resistance of change from different dimensions and angles. And the biggest feeling I get from it is that change is to ring out the old and ring in the new. Whether it is a change agent or a change recipient, one should not understand the change in accordance with the inherent public thinking. Changes are complex, dynamic, and continuous, and every change is associated. Change is not an individual action, but an organized group activity. Before the change, change yourself.

2. “Challenging ‘Resistance to Change examines the origin and development of the concept: ‘resistance to change’. It traces the emergence of this mental model and describes the unusual things which make the phrase much more accepted than it should have been. It shows that this term has gone through a transformation from a systems concept to a psychological one. In the end, the author discusses that labeling difficulties as resistance to change would impede the change. The author thinks organizational change is complex and requires dynamic consideration.

‘Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story proposes change agents contribute to the occurrence of resistance and resistance might be restructured and can be a resource of change. The author expands the idea with providing analysis of multiple approaches for change agents to positively contribute, for e.g. breakdowns the communication process into components and examines the potential effect to the changes.

‘An affect-based model of recipients’ responses to organizational change events highlights the change recipients as active roles playing in organizational changes. The author builds models which distinguish organizational change categories by dimensions of valence and activation, and concludes the predictors to the responses of change events. This provides a very different perspective of how the changes develop and the response according to the changes. One implication is that change agents should appreciate recipients activated response instead of downplay them. The second implication is managing change should be taken into consideration especially between stages of change.

Key insights:  I would now take change as a process of interaction of multiple parties. Previously I thought change is made by leadership and employees should follow. In fact, every element that is affected by the change is also leading the change, sometimes in a positive way. The change makers shouldnt simply take the resistance of change recipients as obstacles but consider dynamically how the whole system is affected.

3. The first reading Challenging Resistance to Change reviewed the origin and development process of the generally accepted model of managers must overcome resistance to change. The author believes that this belief confuses the understanding of the change dynamics. It has led to various inefficient behaviors in the organization over the past 30 years. Therefore, the author recommends abandoning this useless framework for change management.

        The second reading Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story reexamined the concept of resistance to change and its role in organizational change. The author believes this view is biased because it does not consider that resistance may be the behavior and communication of change subjects to change recipients. Recommendations are made for reorganization resistance, which is focusing on doing things for change recipients rather than agents.

        The third reading An affect-based model of recipients’ responses to organizational change events emphasized the central and positive role played by the recipient in organizational change. Their reaction attitude can affect the progress and even the success of changes. There are four types of reactions: change resistance, change proactivity, change disengagement, and change acceptance. The most important way to promote change is to narrow the psychological distance between change recipients and change.

  I got 3 key insights from these readings:

It is managers who need the most change to overcome resistance. Managers must understand the change from the perspective of their employees.
When people perceive themselves as being treated or treated fairly, they develop relationships and behaviors associated with successful change and vice versa.
By gaining the emotional identity of change recipients, one can implement change more effectively and make it more meaningful.