Ambivalence and Resistance: A Study of Management in a Concertive Control System

By Gregory S. Larson, P. Tompkins. 2005

93 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/963490e5c75356cea2ab6623adc64561c680b9c3

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management

Citations in the corpus

The Toxic and Mythical Combination of a Deductive Writing Logic for Inductive Qualitative Research (2012, unknown): “…Becker, Ellevold, & Stamp (2008); Canary (2010); Dougherty, Kramer, Klatzke, & Rogers (2009); Ganesh & Stohl (2010); Jian, (2007); Larson & Tompkins (2005); Lutgen-Sandvik (2006); Meisenbach, Remke, Buzzanell, & Liu (2008); Sahlstein, Maguire, & Timmerman (2009); Scarduzio &…”
Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story (2008, background): “Finally, although Piderit (2000) has suggested that ambivalence may be helpful during change, Larson and Tompkins (2005) have found that change agents undermine the power of their justifications for and the legitimacy of a change by being ambivalent.”
Communication and Social Identity Theory: Existing and Potential Connections in Organizational Identification Research (2007, unknown): “For example, the work in unobtrusive control (see Barker, 1993; Gossett, 2002, 2006; Larson & Tompkins, 2005; Papa, Auwal, & Singhal, 1997; Tompkins & Cheney, 1985) and organizational identity issues (see Cheney & Christensen, 2001; Cheney, Christensen, Zorn, & Ganesh, 2004; Fairhurst, Jordan, &…”
A communication model of employee cynicism toward organizational change (2008, background): “For example, Larson and Tompkins (2005) found that employee resistance could be supported, indirectly, by managers when managers showed identification with the traditional value premises of the company.”
Organizational change: Motivation, communication, and leadership effectiveness (2009, background): “Leadership ambivalence weakens claims of legitimacy for change and enables recipients to cling to reasons for resistance (Larson & Tompkins, 2005).”
RESISTANCE TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: LINKING RESEARCH AND PRACTICE (2010, unknown): “Larson and Tompkins (2005) examined consistency in management actions with the goals of an initiative, and Giangreco and Peccei (2005), Lines (2004), Msweli-Mbanga and Potwana (2006) all found benefits in employee participation on attitudes about and resistance to change.”
Ambivalence in Organizations: A Multilevel Approach (2014, background): “Although the literature typically regards this as quite dysfunctional (e.g., Larson and Tompkins 2005, Rothman and Wiesenfeld 2007), our analysis suggests that there are times when leaders should actively sow ambivalence as a means of fostering personal growth, nuanced decision making, adaptation,…”