Resistance to change

Livingston 1 Ajax minerals enemy to Change granting immunity to convert has been nonable as an organisational ch everyenge however, a blanket(prenominal) infrastanding of the different ship shadowal that opp acent preempt be licenceed is unremarkably pr functioniced and super in final result(p) to companies. A U. S. mining comp any, Ajax Minerals realized Just how beneficial it is to understand the comp whizznts of how transmutes affect all branches of their company. Ajax Minerals ac acquaintance their boldness was operating at intimately(p) capableness and in the next span years were going to shed study competitive threats from an some otherwise company.If the things of the future challenges that Ajax Minerals were anticipating werent address and take a leak hold ofled appropriately, the face would be expecting to exist cloggy danger. What it all boils down to ar the losss concerning how Ajax Mineral plaque would counterbalance regarding guard of reassign overs that would batten competitiveness and livelihood for the company. If this subject matter somewhat how employees and management adapt to swop over werent predicted and then addressed, Ajax Minerals future looked bleak. Ajax Minerals introduced a partner off of sources relative to ensure the lively-hood fortress to agitateThis prevailing outdoor stage inherently devises It easily o slip Into an Interpretation of ohmic justification as dys expedient for organisational training. This bear witness con pourboires that this possessive apprehension Is generally a result of an as summing upption favoring the management or interpolate agent as rational, and the of import treatment of distasteful behaviours as irrational. The strike of this hold, then, is to protr make out a recapitulations of rampart beyond the considerationual confines of deepen, and search its intentional office staffs, peculiarly in elating organisational accomplishme nt. Firstly, the thoughtualizations of confrontation and organisational dateing allow for be seekd.In particular, due to the bet to explore the fundamental gives of metro beyond the organisational literature and the overwhelming diversity of the conceptuality, this taste pull up s exhausts draw on the excogitate of Hollander and nowhere (2004), who take address conducted a comprehensive inspection and analysis of foe ground on a large bend of published start on the windic. Then, Jots and Barbers (2003) disorder metaphor and wax lights (2003) assertions on the importance of moments of jailbreaks volition be employed to present how enemy ordure be seen as a imaginativeness that acts to polarity that whatsoeverthing Is going amiss(p) and require rectification.It pull up stakes be come along argued that, by instigateing aw beness and signaling management to a occupation, fortress acts to call for valuation of and reproach on the situation, hence feature organisational attainment. Finally, recognizing that possible pass offrainations to the practicable do of confrontation domiciliate non go unaddressed, the last incision discusses several variables that cease plausiblyly limit the capacity of rampart In exhilarating organizational acquire.Therefore, the central argument of this article Is as follows Re-conceptualizing rampart as a choice rather than as a deficit sheds light on Its theme potentials. In view of its fundamental features, sub elbow room sy arc does tolerate the potential to stimulate organizational teaching. However, whether or non this translates to reality carcass pendent on a wide-eyed wheel of variables environ the organization concerned.Conceptualizing Resistance Despite a surge in studies on resistivity In the bypast few decades, protection carcass a theoretically eclectic concept (Numb, 2005). As Hollander and Londoner (2004) hold, the concept of electric tube is still un rivetsinged and vague. overdue to the lack of a perish and systematic translation, in that respect is little consensus on what constitutes helper, and the language of apology has in point been used in research to thread vastly different phenomena on a range of different dimensions (Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004) .In terms of Its dimension and s carry on, fortress evoke soak up doings occurring at the Individual, incarnate or Institutional train (Hollander &038 take aims to work conditions to organizational or tender constructions (Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004). In addition, granting immunity can take different right awayions or goals, and can be aimed at achieving convince or curtailing transmute (Mulling, 1999). Resistance can also discernible in unhomogeneous vogues. Among the diverse arrange of literature on impedance, the just about a great broadcast studied method of opposite is one which involves physical bodies or material objects in ac ts of foe (Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004).This can refer to skeletal frameal, incarnate and open consummations much(prenominal)(prenominal) as protests and brass of unions Capper, 1997, as cited in Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004), as well as in ballock, map and covert person motions much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as feigning unhealthiness and pilfering (Parkas &038 Parkas, 2000 Scott, 1985) . Apart from the physical and material mode, safeguard can also take posture in divers(a) other forms. For congressman, subway can be accomplished by symbolic behaviors much(prenominal)(prenominal) as serenity (Pickering, 2000, as cited in Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004) or respite silence (Hughes et al, 1995, as cited in Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004).From their review and analysis of the conception of justification demonstrate on published work on electrical electrical subway in the sociable sciences, Hollander and Nowhere (2004) proposes a s point part typology of impedance that includes overt guard, covert metro, unwitting guard, purport- delimitate foe, foreignly defined resistance, missed resistance and attempted resistance, each conjureing in the aims of resistors intention, targets recognition as resistance, and other observers (such as a researcher or other third party) recognition as resistance.Among these, overt resistance, one which is intended to be viewable and which is readily recognised as resistance by targets and other observers, is the most wide sustained and recognize form of resistance and is the core of the conceptualization of resistance (Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004). On the other hand, covert resistance, which is conceptually homogeneous to everyday resistance (Scott, 1985) and routine assistant (Parkas &038 Parkas, 2000) be both(prenominal) intentional and observable, just whitethorn non of necessity be recognised by the target as resistance. These two forms of resistance bequeath form the flat coat of the conceptualization adopted in this try.Amid the vast conceptual differences, however, Hollander and Nowhere (2004) chance on two core elements that atomic number 18 pursuant(predicate) across all conceptualizations of resistance action and opposition. Generally accepted as a make component of resistance, action may involve conscious, active and expressive behavior and can emerge either at the verbal, cognitive or physical aim (Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004). In addition, as reflected by close to terms comm lone(prenominal) used to describe resistance- contradiction, tension, rejection, challenge, cut offion and date (Albert, 1991 Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004), resistance perpetually involves some form of opposition.Bauer (1991), however, draws a greenback in the midst of resistance and opposition in his definition of resistance in the context of resistance to lurch in organizations. harmonise to Bauer (1991), resistance is an expression of conflict of inter est, values, goals, or means to ends which is unanticipated by the change agent, and which transforms into opposition only after organism institutionalized through titular take of expression. As the overwhelmingly diverse constitution of the conception implies, pinning down a definitive conception of resistance in organizations is unfeasible.Therefore, for the purpose of this essay, the opinion of resistance pull up stakes draw on Barbers (1991) definition of resistance This conceptualization will, however, head for the hills beyond Barbers (1991) definition to include acts of opposition such as every day, routine resistance, which may non oblige been institutionalized through formal channels. Further impudences are that these acts are visible, observable, and snarf from conscious oppositional intentions. In other words, the forms of resistance discussed in this essay will focus on what Hollander and Nowhere (2004) term as overt resistance and covert resistance.To sum up, resistance will be conceptualized as Unanticipated oppositional action arising from a conflict of interest, values, goals or means of achieving a goal, expressed with conscious oppositional intention and in forms that are observable. Conceptualizing organisational encyclopaedism In a fashion very similar to that of assistance, the concept of organizational acquire is still a vastly multi-dimensional, diverse and fragmented subject area with little convergence despite a proliferation of research since the sass (Wang &038 Aimed, 2002).Organizational skill, in the simplest sense, refers to a change in organizational knowledge (Schulz, 2002). It involves acquisition of brisk-made knowledge (Miller, 1996) by means of added, transformed or cut down knowledge (Schulz, 2002). Essentially a multi direct phenomenon, organizational development encompasses breeding at the man-to-man, group/team and organizational level make up &038 Bauer, 2003 Lima, Laughingstock, &038 Chant, 2006 M arauded, 1995).While it is unremarkably acknowledged that all learning starts with individual learning, and that individual and group learning rent positive effect on organizational learning (Lima et al, 2006), the notion of what really constitutes organizational learning remains excessively broad, diverse and controversial (Wang &038 Aimed, 2003). This essay adopts the perspective proposed by baleen (2000) and Jots and Bauer (2003) that learning at the organizational level involves desegregation of knowledge generated from the individual and group level which leads to changes in airmailed procedures within an organization.Formal procedures refer to a pose of explicit constraints within which organizational activities unfold (March, Schulz and Chou, 2000, as cited in Jots and Bauer, 2003, p. 29). As Baleen (2000) cross offs, organizational learning is a realignment of the organization through reinvention of organizational settings, in which new missions are formulated, new p lans and goals are set, structures are redesigned, unconscious attendes are reengineering and improved, strategic beliefs are modified, and the in operation(p) causal map is altered (p. 92). This conceptualization of learning can also be associated with Argils and Scions (1996) notion of double-loop learning, the form of learning which occurs when errors are detected and corrected in shipway that involve the modification of an organizations vestigial norms, policies and objectives. Organizational learning can thus harbinger phenomena such as changes in formal written rules or employees embodied habits apostrophize &038 Bauer, 2003).Resistance and Organizational Learning Resistance in organizations usually emerges in two arctic directions, either for the purpose of quick compriseing structures or to resisting change initiatives (Mulling, 1999). Yet, the dominant intelligence of resistance that permeates management wisdom is arguably rooted in studies of the last mentione d. In fact, most studies on resistance to change rest on the astray held and accepted assumption that people resist change and this is an write out management has to overcome (Dent &038 Goldberg, 1999). In addition, change is subordinates (Dent &038 Goldberg, 1999).This results in a bias that favors the change agent as rational and objective, and treats resistant practices as inappropriate (Dent Goldberg, 1999 Jots &038 Bauer, 2003), irrational and nonadaptive behavior that has to be overcome if useful and lasting change is to be achieved (Collisions &038 Cracked, 2006 Ford, Ford, &038 Diadems, 2008). umpteen studies suck set out to explore the causes of resistance to change and subsequently offer strategies to overcome resistance (Examples? ). Yet, most do not in fact offer ways to overcome resistance per SE, just now instead suggest strategies for preventing or minimizing resistance (Dent &038 Goldberg, 1999). alternatively than offering solutions, these approaches arguably moreover uphold he view that resistance is impaired and should be avoided altogether. This perception carries particularly hearty implications for an era in which managing change and learning is seen as the key tasks of organizational leading (Marauded, 1995), as indirectly prescribes a proscribe association amidst resistance and learning. In todays highly turbulent and competitive championship environment, the capacity to learn at the organizational level is highly valued and widely regarded as a viable excerpt strategy (Broadband, McGill, &038 Beech, 2002 Lima et al. 2006). At the estate of this, then, is the ultimate desired outcome of organizational learning- the flexibility and ability to adapt and cope in rapidly changing environments (Broadband et al. , 2002 Catcher- Greenfield &038 Ford, 2005). Hence, a key challenge for organizational leading is to maximize organizational learning in order to develop an organization that has the capacity to recognize, react, en act appropriate responses, and adapt to environmental changes (Alas &038 Shrill, 2002 Broadband et al. , 2002). Such capacities are of necessity embedded in an organizations knowledge base (Alas &038 Shrill, 2002).In view of this, the perception that resistance to change is dys rightal for organizational learning lies in the fact that in the context of change in which employees are expected to learn and adopt new skills or behavior, resistance is seen as a refusal to learn and accordingly translated to signify disruption to the change process (Alas &038 Shrill, 2002). However, looking beyond resistance to change to studies on other kinds of resistance, one can see that resistance can in fact be viewed in a much positive light than in the context of resistance to change.In the context of everyday, routine resistance to existing oracle conditions, for example, studies have found acts of resistance to be strategies that can stimulate structural (Parkas &038 Parkas, 2000) or even revo lutionary (Scott, 1989) change. Therefore, what is needed is an exploration of the issue beyond the confines of perspectives on resistance to change. We should look beyond the context of resistance to organizational change driving forces, and explore resistance in a more frequent sense, based on the fundamental characteristics of various kinds of resistance that typically manifest in organizations, heedless of the goals or directions.In fact, whether aimed at resisting or instigating change, resistance in organizations can manifest in very similar ways, from more overt forms of resistance such protests or more subtle forms of resistance such as foot dragging, false compliance, pilfering, belie ignorance, slander, intentional carelessness, feigned sickness, absenteeism, sabotage, among others (Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004 Mulling, 1999 Parkas &038 Parkas 2000, Scott, 1989).Exploring the fundamental phenomenon without the constrictions of a preconception or underlying assumption, which will also enable us to ruin explore the liveality of resistance in organizations, and how it may, in fact, stimulate organizational learning. Re- conceptualizing the Role of Resistance in Organizational Learning pursuance the preceding proposal, it is necessary to recapitulation resistance not as a dys dish outal phenomenon, but as a resource that, if recognized and utilized appropriately, can get to positive make for the organization.In fact, some scholars have already suggested that we look beyond overcoming resistance and instead focus on discerning the source of resistance and treat it as a signal that something is going incorrectly in the organization (Lawrence, 1954 Sense, 1997). Jots and Bauer (2003) further extend this idea with the ail metaphor to show the symptomatic potential of resistance, and proposed a tilt of direction from the causes to the effects of resistance. Drawing on a functional analogy to astute suffer sensation in the tender-hearted phy sical structure system, they suggest that resistance act upons the like role within an organization as suffering does in the human body.Just like how pain functions as a signal for the body, resistance functions as a feedback loop for management, by means of an alarm signaling that problems exist and should be looked into and acted on to prevent further damage Cost &038 Bauer, 2003). This is can be further illustrated by a predictable cycle of events that follows the engender of not bad(p) pain in the human system. When pain occurs, it shifts care to the source of pain, enhances the persons body image and self- reflective thinking processes, balks present activeness and brings it under evaluation, and stimulates a new, altered course of action (Wall, 1979).Jots and Bauer (2003) argue that even though acute pain may ab initio disrupt and delay on-going activities, its functions in suggestion privileged attention, indicating the location and hypes of problem, and elating face render it an important resource that can be crucial for survival. Transferring the same diagnostic functions of pain to resistance, resistance can be seen as a functional resource for an organization to diagnose and better modern activities that are potentially damaging Cost &038 Bauer, 2003).Like a person who is unable to experience pain, an organization that is not capable of catching resistance, or as Jots and Bauer (2003) label, functional bodied pain (p 1 1), will be separate through its inability to detect threats to survival. much particular propositionally, when resistance occurs, whether it is aimed at resisting change initiatives or resisting existing (everyday) conditions in the organization, it is an indication that changes are needed.Regardless of the context or situation that instigates resistance, it indispensablely signifies an origination of tension and conflict of interests in the current state of affairs, implying that things are farthermost from ideal and that there are areas that could and should be investigated and rectified. Envisage two distinct approaches to such a situation one organization disregards signs of assistance or suppresses the acts of resistance date another(prenominal) organization takes time and effort to diagnose, reflect and identify necessary changes to make.The latter will arguably be make better off in the long perish because it has had the avenue to identify and right its problems, including any possible latent issues or conflicts that had initially caused resistance. In the former organization, however, problems will remain, if not have effects on the organization, regardless of whether it was perceive to be so. Hence, employing Jots and Bauer (2003)gs pain metaphor, it can be argued that in tuitions of pain/resistance, the a priori tendency is to approach it in ways similar to those suggested in the cycle of events proposed by Wall (1979).In this sense, resistance does not only stimulate re flection, but is itself a resource for reflection. Therefore, as will be discussed later, resistance can be particularly useful in stimulating a specific kind of learning, reflective learning, in organizations. In addition to Jots and Barbers (2003) pain metaphor, an alternative way to highlight the potential function of resistance is to understand it within the framework of Heidegger (1962, s cited in Wick, 2003) terzetto modes of engagement.Drawing on these three modes of engagement, Wick (2003) describes three modes of engagement in the organizational context- the ready-to-hand mode, the unready-to-hand mode and the present-at-hand mode, to explore the disconnections amid organizational practices and theories, from which he emphasizes the function of the unready-to- hand mode of engagement in bridging the scissure between theory and practice. The unready-to-hand mode refers to moments when an on-going activity is interrupted and when problematic aspects that caused the hoo-h a perform salient (Wick, 003).In other words, unready-to-hand mode denotes moments of interruption in organizational processes or activities. According to Wick (2003), such moments interrupt the relevant actors of the organization, prompting them to take efforts to make sense of the interruption. Because a moment of interruption causes partial detachment from the organizational activity and makes the activity more visible, it is an opportunity to get a richer and clearer glimpse of the picture, to reflect, and to gain a better understanding of the issues concerned (Wick, 2003).It is during these moments when relevancies that have previously gone unnoticed can be chance uponed (Wick, 2003). Therefore, being such a rich resource, the potential luminousness that interruptions of organizational activities can offer should not be overlooked. For its many another(prenominal) similar characteristics to moments of interruptions as illustrated by Wick (2003), resistance could be seen in the same light as the unready-to-hand mode of engagement. In many ways, resistance is parallel to a scenario of the unready-to hand mode as resistance is fundamentally a form of interruption to ongoing organizational activities or processes.Therefore, drawing on Wicks (2003) viewpoint and placing resistance within this framework, we can, again, see resistance as a resource that makes underlying problems visible and allows the organization to reflect and discover issues or problems that would otherwise remain invisible. both Jots and Bauer (2003) and Wicks (2003) propositions highlight the potential diagnostic function of resistance in stimulating knowingness and directing attention to a perhaps malfunctioning area within the organization, which inherently associations to its function as a useful resource in stimulating reflection and learning.The following section, then, will focus on reflective learning, and illustrate how resistance can function as a resource that stimulates ref lective learning at the organizational level. Resistance as a Resource How resistance cans Stimulate Learning Reflective learning refers to the process of internally examining and exploring an issue of concern, triggered by an experience, which creates and clarifies meaning in 1983, p. 99). In short, reflection is the key to learning from experience.A key human mechanism for do sense of and learning from experiences (Boyd &038 False, 1983) affliction has traditionally been seen as an individual phenomenon (Essence &038 Termed, 2007). Now, however, there is increase recognition of the rationale of reflection for work at the organizational level (Essence &038 Termed, 2007). In the organizational context, reflective learning refers to a communal process of reflection of an experience or issue which requires critical trial run and reconstruction of meanings (Essence &038 Termed, 2007).Semester and Termed (2007) argue that this is an important process for organizations because experien ce is both the dominating feature and resource in work and organizations. Therefore, capitalizing on experience and learning from it is intrinsically think to the survival of organizations. Yet, reflective learning does not take place voluntarily and by nature. Because of the human tendency to reduce cognitive dissonance, we tend to adopt strategies to avoid perceiving information that contradicts our perceptions and beliefs (Markus &038 Cajon, 1985, as cited in Essence &038 Tamer, 2007).Essence and Tamer (2007) claim that, for this reason, reflection only occurs in impulsive situations and does not generally arise during stagnant situations. In other words, reflection necessitate to be provoked by questionable or ambiguous situations in which conventional meanings are no longer satis factor iny (Chon, 1983 Rogers, 2001 Wick et al, 2005, as cited in Essence and Tamer, 2007, p. 233). At this point, the logic of bringing in resistance, as an example of such situations is clear, as resistance arguably fits the depiction and shares many parallels with situations of incertitude and ambiguity.To different extents, all these situations can be seen as forms of unanticipated and undesirable interruptions to ongoing organizational activities which require deeper reflection and understanding. Therefore, in view of the temperament of resistance and situations that trigger a felt need for reflection, it can be argued that resistance can in effect function to stimulate reflective learning in organizations. Existing studies showing how resistance leads to change can serve to stick up the proposition that resistance stimulates organizational learning.While there is a dearth of studies within the organizational literature exploring the direct links between resistance and learning, the affinity can in fact be understood in relation to the connection between resistance and change, as he central aim of organizational learning is the capacity to change in order to cope a nd expire (Alas &038 Shrill, 2002). In view of the central aim of organizational learning, some connections with resistance become apparent because dealing with resistance is fundamentally about coping.An organization that is able deal with resistance in a functional way and utilize resistance to its benefits will arguably have a greater capacity to cope and survive in unpredictable situations because ultimately, whether dealing with resistance or with other internal or external predicaments requires the name set of capabilities the ability to recognize, react and enact appropriate responses. As an example of how resistance can instigate changes, Scott (1989) has account that routine forms of covert resistance, displayed through actions such as foot-dragging, pilfering, feigned ignorance and sabotage could have revolutionary capacity.In addition, Parkas and Parades (2000) study of technological change in a health criminal maintenance organization has shown that although informal resistance was effects, resistance, in general, has been detect to produce the following effects firm the resisters self identities, rouse renegotiation of roles and relationships, trigger reinterpretation of the dominant managerial discourses, and challenge managerial control, albeit to different extents.The central fact is that resistance Jolted managers and supervisors out of their habitual modes of taking employees for granted (Parkas &038 Parkas, 2000, p. 401). While there is no basis to establish a direct link to organizational learning, this example does show an character where resistance has functioned to stimulate learning by performing the following functions signaling existence of a problem, stimulating a reflection on the situation, and consequently leading to some form of change.This implicitly illustrates that resistance can play a role in stimulating organizational learning. Limitations However, even though it has hitherto been contended that resistance can functio n to stimulate organizational learning, one inevitably to avoid slipping into an idealistic interpretation of the role of resistance and recognize the various limitations that can inhibit its functions. Furthermore, it is crucial to note that while resistance can function to stimulate organizational learning, it by no means imply that resistance will result in learning.In reality, whether or not resistance leads to positive outcomes, or whether it stimulates learning at all depends chiefly on a wide range of other internal or external factors surrounding the organization in question. Firstly, international in nature, resistance is defined by both the resisters perceptions of their own behavior, and the targets, or even a third party observers reactions towards that behavior (Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004).Therefore, how resistance is perceived, or whether it is recognized t all, depends generally on the perspectives and interpretations of the relevant actors because the same actio n may well be perceived differently by different observers. As an example, in their studies of Filipino domestic helpers in Hong Kong, Groves and Change (1999) have reported how the same behavior was perceived as resistance by one researcher (an Asiatic woman), but perceived as puerile and deferent behavior by another researcher (a White man). This demonstrates the complexity complex in the recognition of resistance.Even when acts of resistance are intended to be visible and re in fact observable, cultural and social factors, among others, may mean that they may not necessarily be understood as resistance by the target (Hollander &038 Nowhere, 2004). ethnical differences, for instance, may be a particularly relevant variable that could come into play considering the multicultural nature of many contemporary organizations. The possibility that even observable acts of resistance may not be recognized as resistance highlights a key problem if resistance is not recognized at all, all its potential structural functions are all in all eliminated.For resistance to be functional, it must first be recognized as resistance, and experienced as an nasty and undesirable phenomenon. As Jots and Bauer (2003) assert in the metaphor to acute pain, pain needs to be experienced as prohibit in order to be functional (p. 1 1). Therefore, for resistance to stimulate organizational learning, it has to be first recognized by its target as resistance. Beyond the problem of the perception and recognition of resistance, other complex set of factors can come into play, adding to the complication of the issue.Even when assistance is recognized, further factors could downplay any potential functions of (2005) contend, a wide range of factors exists as disconnects that widen the gap between ideals and realities. Ultimately, resistance is a deeply sociological phenomenon, cover issues such as creator and control, equivalence and differences, social contexts and interactions (Holland er &038 Nowhere, 2004). This, coupled with the complex nature or organizations and organizational learning, unquestionably points to the complexities knotty in conceptualizing the relations between resistance and organizational learning.Particularly, constrains to learning can stem from the existing management, organizational assimilation and organizational configurations ( stubbiness, Freed, Shania, &038 Doer, 2006). Examples of some specific contextual factors within an organization include power relations, government and decision-making authority, conclusion of communication and interaction and level of management control. One key factor that predisposes organizational learning is the structure and culture of an organization. As Evans, Hoodwinks, Rainbow and Union (2006) claim, the wider social structure of an organization can be essential in enabling or preventing learning.Taking crosswise and vertical organizational structures as examples, one can see that resistance is mor e liable(predicate) to stimulate and consequently lead to organizational learning in horizontal organizational structures than in vertical organizational structures. Horizontal organizations, with their emphasis on squinty collaborations, permeable boundaries, mutual understanding and effective communication processes (Baleen, 2000 Dent &038 Goldberg, 1999) over modify control and decision making, have a better capacity to respond efficaciously to ambiguity and unanticipated situations (Baleen, 2000).This is also inextricably related to the underlying mental capacity of an organization. As Catcher-Greenfield and Ford (2005) note, the mindset of the relevant organizational actors can have a direct impact on the level of bridal or denial towards unanticipated, and particularly, undesirable events (Catcher-Greenfield &038 Ford, 2005) On one end of the continuum is an acceptance of reality, in which the relevant actors, such as supervisors or managers, are able to let go of past perceptions, experiences and comfortable attitudes, to address new realities that have surfaced.On the other end of the nerve impulse is denial, in which the actors mindsets are rooted in past experiences and perceptions, and do not accept that there are problems with existing ways, and that change is needed (Catcher- Greenfield &038 Ford, 2005). Hence, the structure and underlying mindset of an organization can have direct implications on what ensues after resistance has surfaced. Stubbiness et alls (2006) study of a secrecy-based organization in the defense industry serves to show how organizational learning can be keep by cultural factors within the organization.In the company, which has an internal culture that does not encourage learning and knowledge transfer beyond individual work units, Stubbiness et al (2006) found that social distance, absence of dialogue between top and middle management, the professional and organizational culture of the company that rarely considers t he needs of employees, and the secrecy culture that limits information flow, have all proven to be obstacles to collective reflection and learning.Considering the assumption that learning requires collective reflection (Bout, Creases, &038 Dougherty, 2006), resistance will likely fail to stimulate earning within an organizational culture such as this which does not support example, Campbell (2006) study of learning in a Catholic church shows how learning can be impeded in dogmatic organizations with rigid rules and authoritative power structures. In such an organization, where beliefs, principles and rules are commonly accepted as authoritative and beyond question, inputs from the lower levels of an organization is normally unwelcome.When learning occurs, it is driven by directives from above (Campbell, 2006). It was observed that in such a culture, the top dervish seeks to maintain control of the entire organization by means of protecting the impartiality of organizational princip les, leaving little set and flexibility for other organizational actors, such as supervisors and middle managers, to respond to the realities lining the organization at large.While the example of a Catholic Church is a fairly extreme example, it serves to show how organizational culture and power relations can staidly limit the functions of resistance. In all likelihood, resistance may be suppressed or disregarded. In other words, in such organizations here bottom-up changes are highly improbable, resistance will most likely fail to stimulate organizational learning. cultivation This essay has presented an overview of the conceptualization of resistance and explored the dominant perspective on resistance in relation to organizational learning in current management wisdom.It has been contended that the negative intension often prescribed to resistance is largely contributed by the prevalent assumption that views resistance as irrational behavior within the context of resistance to change. Drawing on Jots and Barbers pain metaphor and Wicks reposition about moments of interruption, it has been argued that resistance could be recapitulation in a more positive light. Rather than being seen as an obstacle to overcome, resistance can be seen as a functional resource as a signal that serves to warn and direct attention to a problem.While providing organizations with the opportunity to attend to and rectify a problem before the problem expands or deteriorates, resistance simultaneously serves to stimulate organizational learning by instigating a felt need for reflection and change. The pain metaphor, in particular, implies that when a warning signal emerges, the intuitive reaction is to manage and rectify the problem. Applying this to the organizational context, then, suggests that resistance will naturally lead to an awareness of the need to change.Yet, the relationship between resistance and learning is not a simple and straightforward one. Ultimately, whether or not resistance can function to stimulate learning is dependent upon many variables. The first problem pertains to the issue of recognition. Due to a range of possible reasons such as perceptions and cultural barriers, an intentional act of resistance may not necessarily be recognized as such y its intended targets. If resistance is not acknowledged and recognized, its potential function in stimulating organizational learning is completely eliminated.Furthermore, additional factors, such as organizational structure and culture, may also act to limit the functions of resistance in stimulating organizational learning. Therefore, while resistance does have the potential to stimulate organizational learning, whether or not that translates to reality remains dependent on a wide range of factors surrounding the organization concerned. References Alas, R. , &038 Shrill, S. (2002). Organizational learning and resistance to change in